the fallacy of eternal torment and related issues

[Dottie]

Still attacking the Bible, now using a secular encyclopedia. Anything, written by anybody, anywhere, as long as it trashes the Bible is the absolute truth, but the Bible has lies, omissions, additions, and pagan myths and legends. Her is a quote from a Christain educatinal site, with links to The Schaff-Herzog Bible Encyclopedia, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, and other Christian.

{Staff Edit - flame} Do you think that because what you have posted from a "Christian educational site" makes their information any less secular that what one would find in what you are calling a secular encyclodedia? Where do you think they got their information from? In fact I find at least one clause in your post from this site that is just as the one that I quoted from the Encarda: " 1. There are over 24,000 old manuscripts, that is hand written copies, of portions of the New Testament (NT) today. Over 5,000 of these old manuscripts are in Greek, the language the NT was written
in. Many manuscripts are in Latin, Syriac, or another language."

I find nothing in your post from the Christian educational site to assure me that we have in our New Testament of today the writings exactly as they came from the pen of the writer. And never shall you or any Christian education web site ever be able to prove that to me, for there is too much evidence to the contrary. And that evidence has already been posted. And applying THE BIBLIOGRAPHICAL TEST or any other test that they might, " TO ESTABLISH THE LIKELIHOOD THAT WHAT COPIES WE HAVE Are faithful representatives of the originals" just does not fill the bill here.

 

[Dottie]

But let us examine some other evidence; and this evidence speaks not so much to the case of whether or not we have the New Testament writings in their original form. But more to examine whether or not all of the New Testament writers were inspired of God to write what they wrote.

Matthew 28: (1). In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

2. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

3. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

4. And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

5. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

6. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

7. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

8. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

9. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

10. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

*************************************************************************************

Mark 16: 1. And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

2. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

3. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

4. And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

5. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

6. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

7. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

8. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

9. Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

*************************************************************************************

Luke 24:

1. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

2. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

3. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

4. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

5. And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

6. He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

7. Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

8. And they remembered his words,

9. And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

10. It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

11. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.

12. Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.

***********************************************************************************

John 20: 1. The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

2. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

3. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

4. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

5. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

6. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

7. And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

8. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

9. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

10. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

11. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,

12. And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

13. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.

14. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

15. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

16. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

18. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

19. Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

20. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

**********************************************************************************************

Now here we have four different accounts from four different men, of the events that occurred that surrounded the discovery that Jesus had risen from the dead. Whose account then do we take as being the inspired word of God? Was it Matthew's? Was it Marks? Was it Luke's? Or was it John's?

Granted, the important thing here is that He arose, and that we believe that. But if Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's and John's writings are all the inspired word of God, then it seems that God told each of them something different.

 

[Dottie]

Matthew 27:5. Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

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?

47. Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.

48. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.

49. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.

50. Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52. And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53. And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

*********************************************************************************

Mark 15: 25. And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

26. And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

27. And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.

28. And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.



29. And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,

30. Save thyself, and come down from the cross.

31. Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.

32. Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

33. And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

34. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

35. And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.

36. And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.

37. And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

38. And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.

**********************************************************************************

Luke 23: 33. And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

34. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

35. And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

36. And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,

37. And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.

38. And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

39. And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

40. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41. And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

44. And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

45. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

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.

***********************************************************************************

​

John 19: 25. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

26. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

27. Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

28. After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

29. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

30. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

************************************************************************************

And so here we have Matthew's account which speaks nothing as to Jesus' last words before He died, but simply says that "He cried with a loud voice, and yielded up the spirit" and then concentrates on on the story of how the temple was rent in two because of an earthquake; the graves being opened and many of the bodies of the Saints that slept rising; coming out of their tombs and appearing to many after Jesus was resurrected, which is not found in any of the other three accounts of the events occurring at the time of the crucifiction. And that I find quite strange, considering that a happening like this would have been a most uncommon and miraculous occurence.

Mark says the same; that "He cried with a loud voice, and gave up the spirit". While Luke says that Jesus cried with a loud voice, and said, "Father. into my hands I commend my spirit, and having said thus, he gave up the spirit".

And we have John saying that when Jesus had recieved the vinegar, He said, "It is finished", and He bowed his head and gave up the spirit.

So which of these accounts are we to believe in reference to what the last thing that Jesus actually said before He died? Or does it really matter? (Personally, I think it does, because everything that Jesus said; what He said, and when and why He said it, was important, had meaning, and did very much matter.)

Which one of these accounts do you reckon, as you say, those "Early Christians all across the Mediteranean basin" believed, as they read or listened to them being read?

 

[Dottie]

First please read your own post quoted from Encarta, about 5000 manuscripts. Then read my post about the thousands of manuscripts. Pay particular attention to the geographical sources, scatered all over the Christian world. Did all those copies materialize out of thin air?

No of course they didn't materialize out of thin air. They were copies of copies which had been copied and re-copied.

Just as you said, the manuscripts were,"copied and re-copied as they were circulated among the early churches and were passed along from generation to generation." The churches in Galatia, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonika, ALexandria, Rome, Jerusalem, Philippi, etc. did not sit around doing nothing, they preached and taught from something. Handwritten copies of the gospels, and epistles. Do you suppose they did not treat those copies with the utmost dignity and respect, and guard and protect them? Do you think they left them lying around where anyone could get their hands on them?

Well, looks like somebody made a slip somehere, as it seems that the earliest attempt to establish a canon was made about AD 150 by a heretical Christian named Marcion whose acceptable list only included the Gospel of Luke and ten Pauline Epistles, which he edited to suit his own agenda. So your theory that such as Marcion and others like him did not "get their hands on them" just will not hold water.

Now go back and read my "Previous Post," quoted above. In order for the Bible to be corrupted, containing lies, pagan myths and legends, that is what had to have happened. Did the early Christians all across the Mediterranean basin, sit and do nothing while, according to you, corrupted scriptures were substituted for the genuine?

Read about authenicating the scriptures, about the abundance of manuscript support. Now tell me how much mansucript support do you have for your one paragraph from the gospel according to Saint Josephus?

Your "Previous Post" sir, lends nothing towards proving that we have the New Testment writings exactly as they came from the pen of the writers. And what would anyone need with manuscript support to be able to quote Josephus? {Staff Edit - flame}

 

[Dottie]

Misrepresenting the source I cited, and proof once again all you can do is attack the Bible. Since you claim Isaiah 14 is an allegory what does it mean? All scripture is profitable. What spiritual truth are we to gain from this passage.

I do believe that the very first verse of Isa.14 would tell those with ears to hear, the meaning of the proverb.

1. "For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob."

The apostle Paul to the once pagan Ephesaians:

Eph.2: 11. "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12. That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

It is clear to me that the proverb, or parable addresses the time when Jesus would come and establish His cleansed new kingdom; the spiritural Israel, which would put down every other kingdom, as Dan.2:44 prophesies that He would.

"And in the days of these kings [the Roman Caesars, no doubt, for it was during their reign that He was born.] shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

It uses the wicked king of Babylon to symbolically represent the lord over those powers in high places of which the apostle Paul said, Eph.6:10. "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

11. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

Seeing that commenting fully on Isa. 14 would not only take up space and my time, but would also cause this thread to vear sharply off course, I will refrain from doing that at this time, although, admittedly I find it extremely hard not to give you a full course meal here instead of just a snack.

While you are trying to come up with a plausible answer to that question, and attacking the Bible, trying to find lies, corruption, pagan myths and legends in it. Read these verses which all use the word mashal. Were David, King Zedikiah, all Israel, etc., changed into a proverb, a pithy saying, etc? It would appear from scripture that when used of actual persons, mashal means accounts or history of the actual persons will be told as a proverb, etc. Back to Isaiah 14, it refers to an actual person, the king of Babylon, and actual events.

H4912 משׁל mashal maw-shawl'
Apparently from H4910 in some original sense of superiority in mental action; properly a pithy maxim, usually of a metaphorical nature; hence a simile (as an adage, poem, discourse): - byword, like, parable, proverb.

Deu 28:37 And thou [Israel] shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, [משׁל] and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD shall lead thee.

1Ki 9:7 Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb [משׁל] and a byword among all people:

2 Ch 7:20 Then will I pluck them [my people vs. 14] up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it [to be] a proverb [משׁל] and a byword among all nations.

Psa 44:14 Thou makest us [Israel] a byword among the heathen, a shaking of the head among the people.

Psa 69:11 I [David] made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a proverb [משׁל] to them.

Jer 24:8 And as the evil figs, which cannot be eaten, they are so evil; surely thus saith the LORD, So will I give Zedekiah the king of Judah, and his princes, and the residue of Jerusalem, that remain in this land, and them that dwell in the land of Egypt
9 And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for [their] hurt, [to be] a reproach and a proverb [משׁל], a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them.

Eze 14:7 For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself:
8 And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb [משׁל], and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD.

I can't tell for sure here, but it sounds like you think that God's people, becoming a proverb and a byword to the peoples of the kingdoms that God later allowed to subdue them because of their wickedness and disobedience to Him,was a compliment to them. Nothing could be further from the truth, for no nation of people in the history of civilization were ever held in such derision and scorn as were the Jews after God removed His protective hand from them and allowed them to be conquered. To make a long story short, as the generations passed, with the Jews in captivity, their former reputation as a revered nation of wealth and importance were forgotten, and they became to those who had conquered them, for an example, as the legend of King Arthur and his knights of the round table is to us in this day and time.

If you want to throw out Isaiah 14, the entire chapter, because you claim it is an allegory, then we should also throw out a lot of what Jesus said because He once said "even the stones would cry out."

Claiming that Isaiah 14 is an allegory hardly amounts to "throwing it out".

Luke 19: 37. "And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen;

38. Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.

39. And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.

40. And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out."

If God could raise up children unto Abraham from stones, surely, oh surely, He could cause stones to cry out. But He did neither.

 

[Der Alte]

[size=-1]Now here we have four different accounts from four different men, of the events that occurred that surrounded the discovery that Jesus had risen from the dead. Whose account then do we take as being the inspired word of God? Was it Matthew's? Was it Marks? Was it Luke's? Or was it John's?

Granted, the important thing here is that He arose, and that we believe that. But if Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's and John's writings are all the inspired word of God, then it seems that God told each of them something different.[/size]

Four “separate” accounts does NOT mean four “different” accounts. Are you assuming there is a conflict or contradiction among the four gospels? Why are Matthew, Mark, and Luke called the “synoptic” gospels, do you know what “synoptic” means? You are still working hard trying to tear down the Bible. Your arguments can be found at many anti-Bible, anti-Christian, Atheist-Я-Us, or Islamic-Jihad websites. If you are a Christian, why are you using the enemy’s arguments to attack God’s word?

Once again, had you actually sought the truth, you would have found scores of websites that answer all your anti-Christian, anti-Bible, arguments. Simply Google on “Bible Contradictions (or errors) Refuted.’ There are several sites that list all the so-called errors and contradictions by book, chapter, and verse. But again this assumes that you are interested in the TRUTH, not just trashing the Bible.

[size=-1]And so here we have Matthew's account which speaks nothing as to Jesus' last words before He died, but simply says that "He cried with a loud voice, and yielded up the spirit" and then concentrates on on the story of how the temple was rent in two because of an earthquake; the graves being opened and many of the bodies of the Saints that slept rising; coming out of their tombs and appearing to many after Jesus was resurrected, which is not found in any of the other three accounts of the events occurring at the time of the crucifiction. And that I find quite strange, considering that a happening like this would have been a most uncommon and miraculous occurence.

Mark says the same; that "He cried with a loud voice, and gave up the spirit". While Luke says that Jesus cried with a loud voice, and said, "Father. into my hands I commend my spirit, and having said thus, he gave up the spirit".

And we have John saying that when Jesus had recieved the vinegar, He said, "It is finished", and He bowed his head and gave up the spirit.

So which of these accounts are we to believe in reference to what the last thing that Jesus actually said before He died? Or does it really matter? (Personally, I think it does, because everything that Jesus said; what He said, and when and why He said it, was important, had meaning, and did very much matter.)

Which one of these accounts do you reckon, as you say, those "Early Christians all across the Mediteranean basin" believed, as they read or listened to them being read?[/size]

See my previous answer. Anyone interested in TRUTH would know the accounts are “complementary, not contradictory. For example, where do Matthew, Mark, or Luke, say that Jesus did not say “It is finished,” as recorded in John? I wonder if someone standing closer to a person would hear and understand what the person may say, while someone standing farther away would only hear that something was said, but not understand it? “No, lets not use any logic here we’re too intent on just trashing everything about the Bible.”

Instead of digging for every scrap of half baked writing you can find to attack the Bible, e.g. your favorite quote from the gospel according to Saint Josephus, had you really studied the Bible, and its history, written by dedicated Godly scholars, you would have found that all your worn out, tired, old arguments have been answered many, many, times over.

Your fallacious argument is like the story of four blind men who are shown an elephant. One at the elephant’s tusk said an, “An elephant is long and sharp like a spear.” One by the ear said, “An elephant is flat and flexible like a piece of leather.” One by the side said, “An elephant is big and solid like a wall.” And one by the leg said, “An elephant is tall and round like tree.” Which blind man was correct?

[size=-1]I do believe that the very first verse of Isa.14 would tell those with ears to hear, the meaning of the proverb.

1. "For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob."

The apostle Paul to the once pagan Ephesaians:

Eph.2: 11. "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;. . . [/size]

First, you have to prove that was written by Paul and that we have this epistle exactly as originally written, not corrupted by lies, myths and legends, etc. Can you do that? And after proving that, then you must prove that Isaiah was prophesying about events 700 years in the future, and not speaking about immediate events involving the king of Babylon, then and there. Then prove that all the events in Isaiah 14 were fulfilled by the church at Ephesus, or any other N.T. church.

[size=-1]It is clear to me that the proverb, or parable addresses the time when Jesus would come and establish His cleansed new kingdom; the spiritural Israel, which would put down every other kingdom, as Dan.2:44 prophesies that He would. [/size]

The most ridiculous, wild eyed corruption of scripture I have ever heard. Please explain to me how you get what the Lord would do 700 years after the time of Isaiah, when Isaiah was talking about the cruel reign, and death of the King of Babylon who was very well known to Isaiah and his contemporary audience?

When Jesus established His kingdom, through 70 ad until the present, were the people of Israel ever resting from their sorrow, and from their fear, and from the hard bondage wherein they were made to serve (Isa 14:13-14)? There are several verses in Isa 14 which clearly show it is not a prophecy of Jesus. But read here. This actually, literally, happened to the king of Babylon, Belshazzar, Dan 5:30, and all his descendants. If this is about Rome, who does Assyria represent, when did YHWH tread them underfoot on His mountains, and when did God’s mountain move to Rome?

Isa 14:22 For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.
23 I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the LORD of hosts.
24 The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:
25 That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.​

[size=-1]as Dan.2:44 prophesies that He would. "And in the days of these kings [the Roman Caesars, no doubt, for it was during their reign that He was born.] shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

It uses the wicked king of Babylon to symbolically represent the lord over those powers in high places of which the apostle Paul said, Eph.6:10. "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.[/size]

This is the standard Christian Unorthodox Later Theology, knee jerk, copout, anything that contradicts your assumptions and presuppositions then it is must be allegorical, figurative, metaphorical, symbolical, etc. Anything and everything in the Bible can be blown off by saying its symbolical, etc.

Let me see if I have this straight, the cruel, wicked, pagan, king of Babylon represents the Lord.
And God, “isbrought down to the grave, and . . . how art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou [God] hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north?(Isa 14:11-13)

[size=-1]Seeing that commenting fully on Isa. 14 would not only take up space and my time but would also cause this thread to vear sharply off course, I will refrain from doing that at this time, although, admittedly I find it extremely hard not to give you a full course meal here instead of just a snack.[/size]

The only thing you can give me is universalist koolaid, bits and pieces of this and that, cut and paste e.g. secular encyclopedias, Encarta, and of course your gospel according to saint Josephus, etc.,

[size=-1]I can't tell for sure here, but it sounds like you think that God's people, becoming a proverb and a byword to the peoples of the kingdoms that God later allowed to subdue them because of their wickedness and disobedience to Him, was a compliment to them. Nothing could be further from the truth, for no nation of people in the history of civilization were ever held in such derision and scorn as were the Jews after God removed His protective hand from them and allowed them to be conquered. [/size]

Most people actually read a post before trying to reply to it. I clearly stated what I meant. Go back and read, you can do that can’t you?

[size=-1]To make a long story short, as the generations passed, with the Jews in captivity, their former reputation as a revered nation of wealth and importance were forgotten, and they became to those who had conquered them, for an example, as the legend of King Arthur and his knights of the round table is to us in this day and time. [/size]

IOW, just as I clearly said, the actual, literal, historical, events that impacted Israel were told as a maschal. In the same way that the literal, actual events which impacted the king of Babylon were sung as a maschal. But, of course, you want to have it both ways.

NET Isa 14:3 When the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and anxiety, and from the hard labor which you were made to perform, 14:4 you will taunt the king of Babylon with these words: “Look how the oppressor has met his end!

LXXE Isa 14:3 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall give you rest from your sorrow and vexation, and from your hard servitude in which you served them.
4 And you shall take up this lamentation against the king of Babylon, How has the extortioner ceased, and the taskmaster ceased!​

[size=-1]Claiming that Isaiah 14 is an allegory hardly amounts to "throwing it out". . . .

Luke 19: 37. ". . .If God could raise up children unto Abraham from stones, surely, oh surely, He could cause stones to cry out. But He did neither. [/size]

Surely, oh surely you can find somebody who can read English to explain my posts to you so you can comprehend them and not continually misrepresent what I say.

Keil-Delitszch Commentary on the O.T. - Isaiah 14:1-2

For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.

But it is love to His own people which impels the God of Israel to suspend such a judgment of eternal destruction over Babylon. Ch. Isa 14:1-2. "For Jehovah will have mercy on Jacob, and will once more choose Israel, and will settle them in their own land: and the foreigner will associate with them, and they will cleave to the house of Jacob. And nations take them, and accompany them to their place; and the house of Israel takes them to itself in the land of Jehovah for servants and maid-servants: and they hold in captivity those who led them away captive; and become lords over their oppressors." We have here in nuce the comforting substance of ch. 46-66. Babylon falls that Israel may rise. This is effected by the compassion of God. He chooses Israel once more ( iterum , as in Job 14:7 for example), and therefore makes a new covenant with it. Then follows their return to Canaan, their own land, Jehovah's land (as in Hos 9:3).

Proselytes from among the heathen, who have acknowledged the God of the exiles, go along with them, as Ruth did with Naomi. Heathen accompany the exiles to their own place. And now their relative positions are reversed. Those who accompany Israel are now taken possession of by the latter ( hithnacheel , kleeronomei'n (NT:2816) heautoo' (NT:1438), like hithpatteeach , Isa 52:2, lu'esthai ; cf., p. 62, note, and Ewald, §124, b ), as servants and maid-servants; and they (the Israelites) become leaders into captivity of those who led them into captivity ( Lamed with the participle, as in Isa 11:9), and they will oppress ( râdâh b' , as in Ps 49:15) their oppressors. This retribution of life for like is to all appearance quite out of harmony with the New Testament love. But in reality it is no retribution of like for like. For, according to the prophet's meaning, to be ruled by the people of God is the true happiness of the nations, and to allow themselves to be so ruled is their true liberty.

Isaiah 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

"Prepare a slaughter-house for his sons, because of the iniquity of their fathers! They shall not rise and conquer lands, and fill the face of the earth with cities." This exhortation is addressed to the Medes, if the prophet had any particular persons in his mind at all. After the nocturnal storming of Babylon by the Medes, the new Babylonian kingdom and royal house which had been established by Nabopolassar vanished entirely from history. The last shoot of the royal family of Nabopolassar was slain as a child of conspirators. The second Nebuchadnezzar deceived the people (as Darius says in the great inscription of Behistan), declaring, "I am Nabukudrac ara the son of Nabunita."
Isaiah 14:22-23 For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.

Thus far the prophet has spoken in the name of God. But the prophecy closes with a word of God Himself, spoken through the prophet. - Vv. 22, 23. "And I will rise up against them, saith Jehovah of hosts, and root out in Babel name and remnant, sprout and shoot, saith Jehovah. And make it the possession of hedgehogs and marshes of water, and sweep it away with the bosom of destruction, saith Jehovah of hosts." uwshª'aar (OT:7605) sheem (OT:8034) and waaneked (OT:5220) niyn (OT:5209) are two pairs of alliterative proverbial words, and are used to signify "the whole, without exception" (compare the Arabic expression "Kiesel und Kies," "flint and pebble," in the sense of "altogether:" Nöldecke, Poesie der alten Araber , p. 162). Jehovah rises against the descendants of the king of Babylon, and exterminates Babylon utterly, root and branch. The destructive forces, which Babylon has hitherto been able to control by raising artificial defences, are now let loose; and the Euphrates, left without a dam, lays the whole region under water.​

And OBTW my purpose here is not to convince you of anything. You will not believe though one rose from the dead. You have your mind made up and will continue exactly as you are doing. Ignore the truth and search for anything, written by anybody, as long as it trashes the Bible. My purpose here is to show others, whom you might mislead, how fallacious, and illogical your entire belief system is.

 

[Der Alte]

Your earlier post citing your gospel according to saint Josephus, your only evidence that pre-Christian Jews had some myth or legend involving Abraham's Bosom.

[SIZE=-1]Flavious Josephus, who by his own admission, was a "pious" Pharisee, in his DISCOURSE TO THE GREEKS CONCERNING HADES, the entirety of the whole matter of what the Jew believed happened to them when they died. I posted an excerpt from this particular discourse of Josephus on page 13 of this thread. But in case you missed it, I'll post it again for you. . . .

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16869338&postcount=434[/SIZE]

Josephus didn’t even write your only piece of evidence it was written 200 years later by Hippolytus. And it proves absolutely nothing about any belief ever held by pre-Christian Jews. Thus I am still waiting for anything resembling EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATATION, PROOF concerning Luke 16:19-31, and any myths or legends of any kind.

Also note excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on saint Josephus, anything at all written by Josephus is highly questionable.

In evidence of the above, Wrested Scriptures pp.107-108 footnotes a passage from Whiston’s edition of Josephus, A Discourse to Greeks Concerning Hades, which bears an uncanny resemblance to Luke 16. Unfortunately, the resemblance is so uncanny because the passage is based on Luke 16. The author is not Josephus but the 4th Century Bishop Hippolytus. At some point, a copying error confused the names and the mistake was not discovered until recently.

http://www.tidings.org/studies/fables200007.htm

Although a "Discourse to the Greeks on Hades" is present in Whiston's translation, few if any scholars today believe that Josephus wrote this work. This is why parallels with NT phrases have been italicized at Wheaton's on-line library (above). I am informed of the following by Stephen Carlson:

From: "Matthew A. Kraus" <Matthew.A.Kraus@williams.edu>

To: "First Century Judaism Discussion Forum" <ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU>

Subject: Re: IOU: "Josephus's" Discourse to the Greeks on Hades

In fact the passage belongs to a work by Hippolytus of Rome entitled Against the Greeks and Plato on the Universe. The work is lost except for a rather lengthy fragment preserved in John of Damscus' Sacra Parallela which includes the excerpt on Hades and the comparison between Minos, Rhadamanthos, and Christ. The myth of Josephan authorship stems from Photius' Bibliotheca 48, which refers to a peri tou pantou of Josephus. However, Photius himself doubted the attribution to Josephus and cited a marginal note indicated a presbyter of Rome named Gaius as the author. As the marginal note claims that Gaius also wrote the Labyrinth which is another title for Hippolytus' Philosophumena, the gloss essentially got the authorship right, but confused the names Gaius and Hippolytus. The fragment is readily available on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae cd-rom under Hippolytus, on the universe (around line 80).

From Steve Mason <smason@yorku.ca>

To: "First Century Judaism Discussion Forum" <ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU>

Subject: Re: IOU: "Josephus's" Discourse to the Greeks on Hades

Stephen Carlson asks for another:

>>Does anyone know anything about the suggestion that the Discourse to the
>>Greeks on Hades of "Josephus" is spurious?

More than a suggestion: for just the reasons noted by your questioner. Whiston (early 18th cent) could only argue for authenticity by virtue of his premise that josephus was a Christian and became bishop of Jerusalem. That proposal has been thoroughly discredited; a fortiori....

Steve Mason, Academic Director
Centre for the Support of Teaching

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appe.html

Catholic Encyclopedia- Flavius Josephus

Jewish historian, born A.D. 37, at Jerusalem; died about 101. He belonged to a distinguished priestly family, whose paternal ancestors he himself traces back five generations; his mother's family claimed descent from the Machabeans. He received a good education, and association with distinguished scholars developed his intellectual gifts, more especially his memory and power of judgment. He also made himself fully acquainted with and tried the leading politico-religious Jewish parties of his age -- the Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees.

Impressed by the outward importance of the Pharisees and hoping to secure through them a position of influence, he attached himself to their party at the age of nineteen, although he shared neither their religious nor political views.

But he was dazzled by the brilliant court life in the metropolis of the world, that he became ever more estranged from the spirit of strict Judaism, considering its struggle against paganism as useless.

. . . Josephus at first discountenanced the rebellion of his countrymen, goaded into activity by their enslaved condition and outraged religious sentiments;

. . .Josephus escaped the massacre by hiding in an inaccessible cistern, and emerged only after receiving an assurance that his life would be spared. Brought before the victorious general, he sought with great shrewdness to ingratiate himself with Vespasian,

. . .[Josephus] was an eyewitness of the destruction of the Holy City and her Temple. At his personal risk he had tried to persuade the Jews to surrender. After the fall of the city he went to Rome with Titus, and took part in the latter's triumph.

In his life, as in his writings, he pursued a policy midway between Jewish and pagan culture, for which he was accused by his Jewish countrymen of being unprincipled and hypocritical.

While his story of warlike events is reliable, the account of his own doings is strongly tinctured with foolish self-adulation.

He also quotes numerous passages from Greek authors whose writings are now lost. On the other hand he made allowance for the tastes of his Gentile contemporaries by arbitrary omissions as well as by the free embellishment of certain scenes. Books XII-XX, in which he speaks of the times preceding the coming of Christ and the foundation of Christianity, are our only sources for many historical events. In these the value of the statements is enhanced by the insertion of dates which are otherwise wanting, and by the citation of authentic documents which confirm and supplement the Biblical narrative. . . . Book XVIII contains in chapter iii the celebrated passage in which mention is made of the Redeemer in the following words:

About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvellous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased.​

Attempts have been made to refute the objections brought against this passage both for internal and external reasons, but the difficulty has not been definitively settled. The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations. The fact that the "Antiquities" testifies to the truth of Divine Revelation among the Jews as among the Christians, and confirms the historical facts related in the Bible by the incontrovertible testimony of pagan authors, renders this work of Josephus of extreme value for the history of the chosen people.

In his "Autobiography" (phlaouiou Iosepou bios), written A.D. 90, Josephus seeks, not without attempts at self-glorification, to justify his position at the beginning of the Jewish rising.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm
​

 

[Dottie]

Four "separate" accounts does NOT mean four "different" accounts. Are you assuming there is a conflict or contradiction among the four gospels? Why are Matthew, Mark, and Luke called the "synoptic" gospels, do you know what "synoptic" means? You are still working hard trying to tear down the Bible. Your arguments can be found at many anti-Bible, anti-Christian, Atheist-&#1071;-Us, or Islamic-Jihad websites. If you are a Christian, why are you using the enemy’s arguments to attack God’s word?

Your fallacious argument is like the story of four blind men who are shown an elephant. One at the elephant’s tusk said an, "An elephant is long and sharp like a spear." One by the ear said, "An elephant is flat and flexible like a piece of leather." One by the side said, "An elephant is big and solid like a wall." And one by the leg said, "An elephant is tall and round like tree." Which blind man was correct?

The point that you are trying very hard to ignore here is, that of the four accounts of those two events concerning the crucifiction and and the discovery that Jesus had been resurrected are DIFFERENT from each other, and if, as you say, the four gospels are the inspired word of God, there would have been NO difference in the four accounts. And if you are trying to say that God told all four of these men the same thing, but each heard it differently, then how can you place any confidence in anything else that they had to say if they misunderstood what God was telling them even just one time?

And as to your worn out, everybody has heard, story about the four blind men and the elephant; since when do we have to rely on what a blind man has to say about anything? For did not our Lord even say:

" Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."? And as for myself, I really don't think that Jesus meant that we should ask or seek of internet sites for the kind of understanding that He is talking about here.

And yes, I do know what synoptic means, but I am beginning to wonder if you do. For a synopsis of a book or article is simply a brief overview of the contents thereof. And the fact that some have classified Matthew, Mark, and Luke into what they call the synnoptic gospels does not erase the fact that they differ in their accounts pertaining to these two events. Furthermore, your ignorance is showing a little bit more all the time, because John's writing is not included in what is being called the synoptic gospels.

And as to your comment on my arguments being " found at many anti-Bible, anti-Christian, Atheist-&#1071;-Us, or Islamic-Jihad websites", why do you as a Christian, lend credence to these people's anti Bible, anti Christian argument, by claiming that the New Testament is the inspired, inerrant word of God, when it is so glaringly obvious to them that it is not without error? It does not take inspiratation from God to write down something that someone else has told you. And that is exactly, what Mark and Luke did. And neither of them claim anything different. As far as the book of Matthew is concerned, the book itself is anonymous, but the earliest tradition credits it to Matthew, the disciple of Jesus. Papias, second-century bishop of Hierapolis; (yes, good old reliable Papias who seems to have written some parables of his own.) Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons; Origen in the third century; and Eusebius; (the Eusebius who wrote his Historia Ecclesiastica in the fourth century) - all agree that Matthew, the disciple of Christ, authored this gospel. And I do believe that TRADITION would certainly be a key word here.

Once again, had you actually sought the truth, you would have found scores of websites that answer all your anti-Christian, anti-Bible, arguments. Simply Google on "Bible Contradictions (or errors) Refuted.’ There are several sites that list all the so-called errors and contradictions by book, chapter, and verse. But again this assumes that you are interested in the TRUTH, not just trashing the Bible.

And what would I find if I went to these infamous websites that you are touting? I have already read several "Bible Contradictions (or errors) Refuted", and they tell me no more or no less that what is TRADITIONALLY taught, and accepted by mainstream Christianity.

See my previous answer. Anyone interested in TRUTH would know the accounts are "complementary, not contradictory. For example, where do Matthew, Mark, or Luke, say that Jesus did not

say "It is finished," as recorded in John? I wonder if someone standing closer to a person would hear and understand what the person may say, while someone standing farther away would only hear that something was said, but not understand it? "No, lets not use any logic here we’re too intent on just trashing everything about the Bible."

Instead of digging for every scrap of half baked writing you can find to attack the Bible, e.g. your favorite quote from the gospel according to Saint Josephus, had you really studied the Bible, and its history, written by dedicated Godly scholars, you would have found that all your worn out, tired, old arguments have been answered many, many, times over.

{Staff edit - flame and ad hom} And your logic here is a bit off the beam, for all of the accounts besides John's, say that what Jesus said before he died, was said LOUDLY .

Matthew 27:50. "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Mark 15:37. "And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost."

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."

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."

So how do you reconcile these four different accounts of even just this one event concerning Jesus' last words before he died, before the anti-Bible, anti-Christian, Atheist-&#1071;-Us, and Islamic people, without admitting that they can not all possibly be the inspired word of God as you are claiming? You can't do it. Your "Bible Contradictions (or errors) Refuted." websites can't do it. Therefore you give them fuel to add to their flame of unbelief in the concept of Christianity.

And OBTW my purpose here is not to convince you of anything. You will not believe though one rose from the dead. You have your mind made up and will continue exactly as you are doing. Ignore the truth and search for anything, written by anybody, as long as it trashes the Bible.

My purpose here is to show others, whom you might mislead, how fallacious, and illogical your entire belief system is.

As far as trying to reply to any of the rest of the mishmash that you have posted, I will not. Because it is obvious to me that it has come down to the point of your running out of anything else to say, so now you are simply filling in with more insults and silly accusations, i.e. -

" your favorite quote from the gospel according to Saint Josephus",

"But again this assumes that you are interested in the TRUTH, not just trashing the Bible."

"The only thing you can give me is universalist koolaid, bits and pieces of this and that, cut and paste e.g. secular encyclopedias, Encarta, and of course your gospel according to saint Josephus, etc.,"

(I have copied and pasted maybe three times during the whole of this thread, while evey time you have made a reply, the bulk of the reply is copy and paste. )

And oh lets don't forget what seems to be your very most favorite fill in phrases in the whole wide world, "knee jerk" and "assumptions and presuppositions".


And as far as your "Keil-Delitszch Commentary on the O.T. - Isaiah 14:1-2" is concerned, it is sheer and utter nonsense from an individual or individuals that like you, intent on promoting the theory that Christ's kingdom is yet to be established, and trying to deny that Jesus did return as He promised; His kingdom has been established, and it has put down and dissolved every other kingdom that has ever existed in the history of mankind. For it is a kingdom that earthly hands can not touch or handle, and it can not be comprehended by the earthly mind, or viewed by earthly eyes. (Perhaps this is what Jesus meant when He told Nicodemus that He and his constituents had to be born from above before they could see or enter into this kingdom.) And your attempt to divert this thread into another discussion, because you can not hold up your end of the discussion at hand has failed, as far as I am concerned.

The idea that "Proselytes from among the heathen, who have acknowledged the God of the exiles, go along with them " are the "strangers that would be joined with them, and would cleave to the house of Jacob", or that God made "a new covenant " with His people when they returned to their home land, is clearly refuted in Nehemiah's record of this historical event. But if you wish to pursue a discussion which involves "Futuristic" VS. "Preteristic" views, then I suggest that you start a thread which would be about that very thing, and stop trying to side track this thread.

And your "purpose here is to show others, whom [ I ] might mislead, how fallacious, and illogical [my] entire belief system is " is after the fact, and futile, {Staff edit - flame}For though you confess with one side of your mouth to be not under the influence of the {staff edit - rule 2.3} Roman Catholic church, out of the other side of your mouth comes the showing of still being very much under the influence of the traditions of papacy, whose roots are established with the "early church fathers", i.e. such as Clement of Rome, who apparently had very little spiritual understanding if he would believe the pagan myth of the Phoenix.

And I commend your "homework" on Flavious Josephus, and now if you would only read his books a little, you could broaden your understanding even more of who Josephus was, and of what value his historical records are.

It would appear that no one can really make up their minds as to just who really is the author of what has been titled Josephus' Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades. Was it Bishop Hippolytus, or Gaius, a Presbyter of Rome? Or perhaps Whiston is right after all when he attributes its authorship to Flavious Josephus?

And I am still waiting for EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATATION, PROOF, that we have the New Testament writings today as they came from the pen of their authors. {Staff edit - flame}

 

[Der Alte]

[c]Last Words of the Savior
----------------------------------------------------------------

Do the Gospels Disagree About Jesus' Last Words on the Cross?
[size=-1]James Patrick Holding[/size]
----------------------------------------------------------------[/c]

Matt. 27:46,50 (see also Mark 15:34): "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?' ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

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

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."

Do we have different and contradictory stories here? We refer the reader as usual to our essays on Harmonization (see below). Before declaring error or contradiction, there are a number of issues of perspective to consider. What is the effect of oral tradition and/or literary selection? Could John know things the others did not because he was near the cross (John 19:25), and in a position at that time to hear things that people farther away - which would include perhaps Matthew, or people interviewed by Matthew and Luke - did not? Is John supplementing the Synoptics and therefore purposely reporting different things?

Here's a sensible reconstruction. Matthew is in red, Luke in blue, John in green. Matthew/Luke equities are in magenta. Matthew/John equities are in black. (Mark reports more or less the same thing as Matthew.)

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."
Jesus said, "I am thirsty." A jar of wine vinegar was there, so (i)mmediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink (MT)/ they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips (JN). The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."
When he had received the drink Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (JN)/And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice(MT)/ Jesus called out with a loud voice (LK)/"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last(LK)/gave up his spirit(MT).

So by reasonably equating John's "giving up" of the spirit with total event of the final cry, the problem is resolved. We need only recognize that John is focusing on what Jesus said that was not shouted publicly - the plea of thirst, the statement of completion, and the turning over of responsibility for Jesus' mother to John. This fits in with his station at the foot of the cross.

Tektonics Scripture Harmonization Series

http://www.tektonics.org/af/crosswords.html
​

And OBTW “synoptic” means “syn,” “together”, “optic,” “to view.”

 

[buddy mack]

[c]Last Words of the Savior

----------------------------------------------------------------

Do the Gospels Disagree About Jesus' Last Words on the Cross?
[size=-1]James Patrick Holding[/size]
----------------------------------------------------------------[/c]

Matt. 27:46,50 (see also Mark 15:34): "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?' ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

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

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."

Do we have different and contradictory stories here? We refer the reader as usual to our essays on Harmonization (see below). Before declaring error or contradiction, there are a number of issues of perspective to consider. What is the effect of oral tradition and/or literary selection? Could John know things the others did not because he was near the cross (John 19:25), and in a position at that time to hear things that people farther away - which would include perhaps Matthew, or people interviewed by Matthew and Luke - did not? Is John supplementing the Synoptics and therefore purposely reporting different things?

Here's a sensible reconstruction. Matthew is in red, Luke in blue, John in green. Matthew/Luke equities are in magenta. Matthew/John equities are in black. (Mark reports more or less the same thing as Matthew.)

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."[color]
Jesus said, "I am thirsty." A jar of wine vinegar was there, so (i)mmediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink (MT)/ they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips (JN). The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."
When he had received the drink Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (JN)/And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice(MT)/ Jesus called out with a loud voice (LK)/"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last(LK)/gave up his spirit(MT).

So by reasonably equating John's "giving up" of the spirit with total event of the final cry, the problem is resolved. We need only recognize that John is focusing on what Jesus said that was not shouted publicly - the plea of thirst, the statement of completion, and the turning over of responsibility for Jesus' mother to John. This fits in with his station at the foot of the cross.

Tektonics Scripture Harmonization Series

http://www.tektonics.org/af/crosswords.html

​

And OBTW “synoptic” means “syn,” “together”, “optic,” “to view.”

OK OK, out of left field, but i guess it has a meaning

 

[Dottie]

[c]Last Words of the Savior



----------------------------------------------------------------

Do the Gospels Disagree About Jesus' Last Words on the Cross?
[size=-1]James Patrick Holding[/size]
----------------------------------------------------------------[/c]

Matt. 27:46,50 (see also Mark 15:34): "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?' ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

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

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."

Do we have different and contradictory stories here? We refer the reader as usual to our essays on Harmonization (see below). Before declaring error or contradiction, there are a number of issues of perspective to consider. What is the effect of oral tradition and/or literary selection? Could John know things the others did not because he was near the cross (John 19:25), and in a position at that time to hear things that people farther away - which would include perhaps Matthew, or people interviewed by Matthew and Luke - did not? Is John supplementing the Synoptics and therefore purposely reporting different things?

Here's a sensible reconstruction. Matthew is in red, Luke in blue, John in green. Matthew/Luke equities are in magenta. Matthew/John equities are in black. (Mark reports more or less the same thing as Matthew.)

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."
Jesus said, "I am thirsty." A jar of wine vinegar was there, so (i)mmediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink (MT)/ they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips (JN). The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."
When he had received the drink Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (JN)/And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice(MT)/ Jesus called out with a loud voice (LK)/"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last(LK)/gave up his spirit(MT).

So by reasonably equating John's "giving up" of the spirit with total event of the final cry, the problem is resolved. We need only recognize that John is focusing on what Jesus said that was not shouted publicly - the plea of thirst, the statement of completion, and the turning over of responsibility for Jesus' mother to John. This fits in with his station at the foot of the cross.

Tektonics Scripture Harmonization Series

http://www.tektonics.org/af/crosswords.html



​

And OBTW “synoptic” means “syn,” “together”, “optic,” “to view.”

Good try. But no, the accounts are definitely different, and no amount of wiggle-woggling is going to change that. And your problem is not solved. But if one wants to buy into something that far fetched, then I guess that is their privilege. As for myself, I do not have a problem with those differences, because I recognize the fact that Mark and Luke wrote down what they heard from someone else, while John was present.
OBTW, I did not give you the definition for synoptic, but I gave you the definition for synopsis. Sorry I misread the word that you posted.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Good try. But no, the accounts are definitely different, and no amount of wiggle-woggling is going to change that. And your problem is not solved. But if one wants to buy into something that far fetched, then I guess that is their privilege. As for myself, I do not have a problem with those differences, because I recognize the fact that Mark and Luke wrote down what they heard from someone else, while John was present.
OBTW, I did not give you the definition for synoptic, but I gave you the definition for synopsis. Sorry I misread the word that you posted[/SIZE].

All this post is, you saying, "Neener, neener, neener, I'm right and you're wrong."

 

[Dottie]

All this post is, you saying, "Neener, neener, neener, I'm right and you're wrong."

Thanks for that great synopsis of my post, Der.

So what else were you looking for? A thousand page paper back with a terrific ending that tells all about how Matthew wrote with red ink, while Luke wrote with blue ink, while John used green ink, but sometimes Matthew and Luke colluded and wrote with magenta. And the great mystery still remains to this day as to why Matthew, Mark, Luke and John sometimes all wrote with black ink.

 

[Der Alte]

The title of this thread is, "the fallacy of eternal torment and related issues" That premise has yet to be proven.

In American law the defendant/accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is always on the person making the accusation. A defendant/plaintiff in any legal proceeding does not have to prove anything.

In this case the Bible is the accused, the defendant. The Bible has been in existence for over 2000 years. And there have always been people who attack the Bible. Just as in this thread, people claiming that the Bible is corrupt, it incorporates lies, has pagan myths and legends, and is not reliable. Unless the misguided attackers have more authority than the Bible, then the burden of proof is entirely on them.

Where is the evidence that would convince a reasonable, rational, impartial, jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Bible is corrupt, incorporates lies, has pagan myths and legends, and is not reliable? Have the Bible attackers presented evidence of whatever type and caliber they would accept, that would convince them they are wrong?

 

[FineLinen]

The Jewish Encyclopedia....

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/enc.jsp

[Staff edit.]

Gehenna (The Truth) By The Guys Who Speak Read & Write Hebrew

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=115&letter=G&search=gehenna

Those That Go To Hell

1. In general all sinners go to hell immediately after their death.

2. Every individual is apportioned two shares, one in hell and one in paradise.

3. At death, the righteous man's portion in hell is exchanged for two in heaven....the reverse for the sinners.

4. There are various depths of Gehenna commensurate with one's sinfulness.

It is assumed in general that sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b).

The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell (B. M. 83b). To every individual is apportioned two shares, one in hell and one in paradise. At death, however, the righteous man's portion in hell is exchanged, so that he has two in heaven, while the reverse is true in the case of sinners (&#7716;ag. 15a). Hence it would have been better for the latter not to have lived at all (Yeb. 63b). They are cast into Gehenna to a depth commensurate with their sinfulness. They say: "Lord of the world, Thou hast done well; Paradise for the pious, Gehenna for the wicked" ('Er. 19a).

There are three categories of men; the wholly pious and the arch-sinners are not purified, but only those between these two classes (Ab. R. N. 41).

A similar view is expressed in the Babylonian Talmud, which adds that those who have sinned themselves but have not led others into sin remain for twelve months in Gehenna; "after twelve months their bodies are destroyed, their souls are burned, and the wind strews the ashes under the feet of the pious.

But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b).

All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).

The felicity of the pious in paradise excites the wrath of the sinners who behold it when they come from hell (Lev. R. xxxii.).

The Book of Enoch (xxvii. 3, xlviii. 9, lxii. 12) paraphrases this thought by saying that the pious rejoice in the pains of hell suffered by the sinners. Abraham takes the d a m n e d to his bosom ('Er. 19a; comp. Luke xvi. 19-31).

The fire of Gehenna does not touch the Jewish sinners because they confess their sins before the gates of hell and return to God ('Er. 19a).

As mentioned above, heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b). When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10).

The Book of Enoch also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al.). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" (Judith xvi. 17). (see image) Valley of Ge-Hinnom.(From a photograph by Bonfils.)

The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to Isa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b). Enoch also holds (xlviii. 9) that the sinners will disappear like chaff before the faces of the elect.

There will be no Gehenna in the future world, however, for God will take the sun out of its case, and it will heal the pious with its rays and will punish the sinners (Ned. 8b).

Sin and Merit

It is frequently said that certain sins will lead man into Gehenna. The name "Gehenna" itself is explained to mean that unchastity will lead to Gehenna (; 'Er. 19a); so also will adultery, idolatry, pride, mockery, hypocrisy, anger, etc. (So&#7789;ah 4b, 41b; Ta'an. 5a; B. B. 10b, 78b; 'Ab. Zarah 18b; Ned. 22a).

Hell awaits one who indulges in unseemly speech (Shab. 33a; Enoch, xxvii.);

who always follows the advice of his wife (B. M. 59a);

who instructs an unworthy pupil (&#7716;ul. 133b);

who turns away from the Torah (B. B. 79a; comp. Yoma 72b). For further details see 'Er. 18b, 101a; Sanh. 109b; &#7730;id. 81a; Ned. 39b; B. M. 19a.

How We Are Preserved From Going To Hell

1. Philanthropy/ fasting/ visiting the sick/ reading the Shema'/ eating three meals on the Sabbath (make that Saturday)

2. Three classes of men do not see the face of hell.

A. Those living in penury.

B. Those suffering from intestinal catarrh.

C. Those that are pressed by their creditors.

On the other hand, there are merits that preserve man from going to hell; e.g., philanthropy, fasting, visiting the sick, reading the Shema' and Hallel, and eating the three meals on the Sabbath (Gi&#7789;. 7a; B. B. 10a; B. M. 85a; Ned. 40a; Ber. 15b; Pes. 118a; Shab. 118a). Israelites in general are less endangered (Ber. 10a) than heretics, or, according to B. B. 10a, than the heathen. Scholars (&#7716;ag. 27a; comp. Men. 99b and Yoma 87a), the poor, and the pious (Yeb. 102b) are especially protected. Three classes of men do not see the face of hell: those that live in penury, those suffering with intestinal catarrh, and those that are pressed by their creditors ('Er. 41b). It would seem that the expressions "doomed to hell" and "to be saved from hell" must be interpreted hyperbolically. A bad woman is compared to Gehenna in Yeb. 63b. On the names of Gehenna see 'Er. 19a; B. B. 79a; Sanh. 111b; et al.

[Staff edit.]

[Staff edit.]

Surely you have read in the Ancient Words regarding all Jewish sinners repenting at the gates of hell and returning to God.

The fire of gehenna does not touch the Jewish sinners.

You should also be advised that in general the pious go to paradise and sinners go to hell "IMMEDIATELY AFTER DEATH."

There is of course an exception....

Except the Jewish sinners who repent at the gates of hell.

Gehenna is fueled by wood.

There is always plenty of wood there.

The fire of Gehenna never goes out and is sixty (60 times) as hot as any earthly fire.

Shares of hell are exchanged for shares of heaven and vice versa.

Sinners would be better to not have been born.

It would be better for sinners if they had not lived at all.

NOTE:

Except Jewish sinners who repent at the gates of hell.

Regarding heretics: "hell shall pass away."......"but they shall not pass away." Heretics survive hell in duration.

"All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again"

Minus.....

The exception of three classes of men

1. Those who have committed adultury.

2. Those who have shamed their neighbors.

3. Those who have vilified their neighbors.

Abraham takes the d a m n ed to his bosom. The fire of Gehenna, however, does not touch the Jewish sinners!

The Lord puts fire and worms into the flesh of the heathen. He also puts souls back into dead bodies on the day of judgement.

There will be no Gehenna in the future world

however....

"God will take the sun out of its case, and it will heal the pious with its rays and punish the wicked."

Hell awaits one who indulges in unseemly speech.

Hell awaits one who "always follows the advice of his wife.

Hell awaits those who turn away from the Torah.

Question:

Does that include the Jewish sinners who repent at the gates of hell?

Remember: all Jewish sinners repent at the gates of hell!

Three classes of men do not see the face of Hell!

1. Those who live in penury. (Extreme poverty and want.)

2. Those "suffering from intestinal catarrh." (Do not ask me to define it!)

3. "Those that are pressed by their creditors"

In conclusion: Mile High Ice Cream Cones

[Staff edit.]

It would seem that the expressions 'doomed to hell' and 'to be saved from hell' must be interpreted hyperbolically.

Hyperbolically=

Mile High Ice Cream Cones

 

[FineLinen]

If but one soul were to remain in the power of the devil, death, or hell, to all endless eternity, then the devil, death, and hell would have something to boast of against God. Thus death would not be entirely swallowed up in victory, but always keep something of his sting, and hell would ever more be able to make a scorn of those who would say, 'O hell, where is, your victory?' -Paul Seigvolck-

[move]And the leaves of the Tree of Life are for the healing of the nations. And there shall no longer be a curse upon anything.[/move]