Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[1robin]

moving goal posts...are you feeling a little uncomfortable of the fact that there are opposing narratives? focus...this meandering only suggests you can't deal with the discrepancies that are there.

If there are descrepencies you have as of yet to post them. There is nothing contradictory in the verses you posted. How in world do you consider a harmonization of the crucifixion event meandering, especially since I added my views as well as respected commentators views concerning the verses specifically. I even mentioned the grteatest legal mind in historie's opinion on the evidence in the Gospels. I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[1robin]

correction there were more than those four who had contradicting points of view within their narratives

I would have to take your word for it since you have not posted any of them.

an interesting point under the pretense that jesus was god...

It is exactly what is to be expected from temporal flesh and brain coupled with a divine spirit and mind. As well as the fact that he gave up many of his divine attributes or deminished the level of them when he came in the flesh that were later restored. There is no statement in the bible that is not consistent with this understanding.

so when you take a test and you get 6 out of 10 correct you still get a 100% because you at least got the 6 right...
intertesting.

That is only meaningful if there is a coresponding 4 answers that were wrong. The Gospels do not contain any wrong answers that can't be directly attributed to scribal error and are well known. Even that is a vanishingly small part of the whole. You should either post something that is actually contradictory or give up. However I expect neither. Try these if you actually care to gain an answer to whatever it is you think is contradictory.

Simple Harmony of the Crucifixion Accounts (NIV) - by Dr. Ralph F. Wilson - Seven 7 Last Words of Christ from the Cross
36. Jesus on the Cross - Harmony of the Gospels
New Testament Chronology - The Triumphal Entry on Palm Sunday

Here is a whole online book that details the harmony of all the Gospel events exhaustively.
http://www.cbcg.org/franklin/PM/Books/Harmony-of-the-Gospels-Small_3rd-Ed.pdf

 

[sojourner]

contradictory accounts of the same event
and an appeal to tradition is rather weak...
it is a tradition to circumcision females in certain societies...does the tradition make it right?

the cannon was contrived...you know better than that.

So? Ever hear two accounts of the same urban legend? This is no different.

I'm not "making an appeal to tradition." I'm merely stating what happened.

The Tradition is the Tradition -- for better or worse. The inclusion of the stories doesn't make a distinction.

The canon is contrived. We all know that. Again, so what? Aren't all stories and accounts contrived?

 

[sojourner]

what doesn't advance the topic is
your ridiculous way of explaining that these were different events...
there was one event with many contradicting accounts based on hearsay...you just know of the four

we're really not discussing "events" here -- and to do so presents us with an argumentative fallacy: That of diverting our attention from the real issue, which is stories -- not events.

 

[sojourner]

no i don't. i am pointing out the discrepancies i see.
it is not naive to see two opposing narratives and question them
it is naive to take it at face value and accept them because of tradition

Tradition is what they are, though. And we don't take them at "face value." that wouldn't be good exegesis. They are scrutinized carefully, both separately and in context with each other. But in the end, they are different stories within the same tradition.

 

[sojourner]

As can be seen these verses are for different times and are seperate events. At one point both criminals mocked him later on one of them repented. This is the universal intepretation of the verses concerning the thieves and is exactly what I have been saying. No contradiction.

This presents us with "mush gospel" -- that is, cramming separate stories together simply in order to eliminate contradictions. Clearly, this is the wrong path to take. Had the editors wished to do that, they would have constructed one, cohesive account by cramming the four together, and presented us with one, huge gospel. But that's not what they did. They left the separate stories separate -- even with the contradictions intact. They did so, because they knew that each author told his version uniquely and deliberately, in order to promulgate a certain theological take on the Jesus Event. Your treatment denies each unique theological take, obscuring each one in favor of one that, ultimately, doesn't make much sense.

 

[waitasec]

If there are descrepencies you have as of yet to post them. There is nothing contradictory in the verses you posted. How in world do you consider a harmonization of the crucifixion event meandering, especially since I added my views as well as respected commentators views concerning the verses specifically. I even mentioned the grteatest legal mind in historie's opinion on the evidence in the Gospels. I have no idea what you are talking about.

i did post them you just think that because these discrepancies are in a story that is partially cohesive in the 4 narratives, they are not discrepancies but a mere inflection or another perspective...of course theses stories are laying out a general idea of jesus ...that isn't the argument.
there is something to be said about "why have you forsaken me" and into your hands..." but if you wish to :ignore:
don't be surprised if these discrepancies keep creeping up every now and again.

mark's audience were not the same audience of luke's gospel...these small details that are not reconcilable and are there for the purpose of supporting the theology each particular gospel was selling at the time...of course there is going to be a main character named jesus but the details of this character differs from gospel to gospel.

 

[sojourner]

correction there were more than those four who had contradicting points of view within their narratives

Depends upon what source theory you buy into.

so when you take a test and you get 6 out of 10 correct you still get a 100% because you at least got the 6 right...
intertesting.

\
This isn't about "right/wrong." Ancient history just didn't work that way. You're superimposing a modern standard onto ancient documents, trying to make them something they were never intended to be.

 

[waitasec]

Tradition is what they are, though.

so?

And we don't take them at "face value." that wouldn't be good exegesis.

54% of those that attend church on a regular basis take the bible literally...that is a huge number of people...1/3 of the american population.

They are scrutinized carefully, both separately and in context with each other. But in the end, they are different stories within the same tradition.

unfortunately, this is not the norm...and we have gone over this before...
read robin1's comments he is not alone with his position...in fact his position is quite common place...there in lies the power of tradition...

 

[sojourner]

Here is a whole online book that details the harmony of all the Gospel events exhaustively.

Fred Coulter is a bona fide QUACK.

 

[sojourner]

i did post them you just think that because these discrepancies are in a story that is partially cohesive in the 4 narratives, they are not discrepancies but a mere inflection or another perspective...of course theses stories are laying out a general idea of jesus ...that isn't the argument.
there is something to be said about "why have you forsaken me" and into your hands..." but if you wish to :ignore:
don't be surprised if these discrepancies keep creeping up every now and again.

mark's audience were not the same audience of luke's gospel...these small details that are not reconcilable and are there for the purpose of supporting the theology each particular gospel was selling at the time...of course there is going to be a main character named jesus but the details of this character differs from gospel to gospel.

OK. This makes sense. Thank you.

 

[waitasec]

Depends upon what source theory you buy into.
\
This isn't about "right/wrong." Ancient history just didn't work that way. You're superimposing a modern standard onto ancient documents, trying to make them something they were never intended to be.

i think you are talking about those that take the literal interpretation today...that certainly isn't me

i think i have clearer understanding of what the purpose of these different opposing gospels are meant for then before i ever questioned the validity of these stories.

imo, tear it apart and approach it from the context of the time they were written in...
there is certainly nothing wrong with that approach...it dilutes any and all preconceived notions about it's purpose

 

[waitasec]

OK. This makes sense. Thank you.

no prob.

 

[sojourner]

i think you are talking about those that take the literal interpretation today...that certainly isn't me

i think i have clearer understanding of what the purpose of these different opposing gospels are meant for then before i ever questioned the validity of these stories.

imo, tear it apart and approach it from the context of the time they were written in...
there is certainly nothing wrong with that approach...it dilutes any and all preconceived notions about it's purpose

OK, but you're trying to make an argument from the point of view of the literalists -- that just doesn't work.

 

[sojourner]

so?

Don't spank the texts for being what they are.

54% of those that attend church on a regular basis take the bible literally...that is a huge number of people...1/3 of the american population.

I'd be willing to bet that 54% of people in hospitals have no idea how to treat their illnesses either. That's why we have doctors. Most reputable scholars that do the translating and the exegetical work so that the fundamentalist yahoos can have bibles to read in English, and that make a real difference in biblical scholarship are not included in that 54%.

unfortunately, this is not the norm...and we have gone over this before...
read robin1's comments he is not alone with his position...in fact his position is quite common place...there in lies the power of tradition...

I don't think you understand the scholastic usage of "tradition."

 

[waitasec]

OK, but you're trying to make an argument from the point of view of the literalists -- that just doesn't work.

i am arguing with a literalist (robin1)...i wasn't arguing with you

 

[waitasec]

Don't spank the texts for being what they are.

I'd be willing to bet that 54% of people in hospitals have no idea how to treat their illnesses either. That's why we have doctors. Most reputable scholars that do the translating and the exegetical work so that the fundamentalist yahoos can have bibles to read in English, and that make a real difference in biblical scholarship are not included in that 54%.

I don't think you understand the scholastic usage of "tradition."

from what i understand, it is approached from the outside (an objective POV)...bible literalist approach tradition from the inside (a subjective POV), hardly scholastic but rather personal...again i am speaking from the literalist POV, for the sake of argument

 

[1robin]

i am arguing with a literalist (robin1)...i wasn't arguing with you

I thought a literalist was either a person who believes every word in the bible is the perfect representation of what God revealed or a person who interprets scripture as literal and not allegory (that one makes no sence at all). Regardless I am neither. The diference between me and Sojourner is in degree not in any sence of totality.

 

[1robin]

i did post them you just think that because these discrepancies are in a story that is partially cohesive in the 4 narratives, they are not discrepancies but a mere inflection or another perspective...of course theses stories are laying out a general idea of jesus ...that isn't the argument.
there is something to be said about "why have you forsaken me" and into your hands..." but if you wish to :ignore:
don't be surprised if these discrepancies keep creeping up every now and again.

mark's audience were not the same audience of luke's gospel...these small details that are not reconcilable and are there for the purpose of supporting the theology each particular gospel was selling at the time...of course there is going to be a main character named jesus but the details of this character differs from gospel to gospel.

Are you sure that we have not had this same discussion before? I think I remember a story about going to the store I posted that dealt with this simplistic issue. I do not know if there is anything to be gained if we have but if not rock on.

 

[waitasec]

I thought a literalist was either a person who believes every word in the bible is the perfect representation of what God revealed

then why do you ignore the discrepancies found in the gospels?