Mythra Posted November 23, 2015 Author Share Posted November 23, 2015 The writer of John's gospel is the one who put those words into jesus' mouth saying the holy spirit will bring back remembrance of the things I said. And where does this occur? Right at the beginning of John 14. Just before Jesus starts praying. That writer knew that unless he covered that base, four chapters of soliloquy would never be swallowed. Convenient to give apologists an easy-out like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Just out of curiosity, not only Mythra, but others who are responding in this thread...didn't any of you ever hear that answer? The one about the holy spirit giving the ability to recall everything Jesus said, and that's how we know it is accurate...because the HS told them what he said? Yes, we're quite familiar with the claim, at least those of us from conservative Christian backgrounds. (I'm not sure how much stock liberal Christians put in that claim.) It's not that we don't know the claim, but rather that we now can see through it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunzooh Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Thing is, this is a question that Xtians can answer. They have "all the answers" Right? But I bet they can't say when the name YWH was revealed to mankind. Check it out. (possibly my favorite contradiction, to be frank) In Exodus, Moses sees the burning bush, right? It is here that God gives him the task of liberating the people Israel, and Moses asks "Who shall I tell them sent me?" and God says "Tell them YWH sent you"...that's in like Exodus 4. In Exodus 6, we have YWH telling Moses "I am the god of Abe, Ike, and Jake, and they knew me but I never revealed my name to them" (Ex 6:2-3)...but wait a minute... Read Genesis 4:26 "From that time forward, men began to call on the name of the LORD" Is that spelled with all caps? Do tell. And what does that signify? Oh...wherever you see LORD in all caps, that's the name of God? Really. So tell me again, WHEN did God reveal his name to people? At the burning bush, or right after the murder of Abel and Cain's consequences? Not only that, but there are lots of times in the book of Genesis where Abe, Ike, and Jake (and possibly Joe?) DID mention "the name of the LORD"... THAT, my friends, is the kind of question that Xtians cannot answer. I found it on Contradictions in the Bible http://contradictionsinthebible.com One of my best tools in this baffling leg of my journey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunzooh Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 The questions that Xtians can answer aren't what threw me off the bible. It was those that put xtians into that "deer in the headlights" mode. And sadly, there are as many of those as there are of the variety they "can" answer. The little details, such as whether Judas hanged himself OR fell and his guts gushed out? pfft. big deal. That one still doesn't bother me. It's a legit argument, that two different authors would include different details. Two biographies of Abraham Lincoln will have differences in detail. If we have four different accounts of the life and teachings of a man in ancient times, of course there will be differences in detail. Big woop. And if you believe in the sovereignty of god, it's no big deal AT ALL to give the writers the recall needed to accurately record the words of Jesus even centuries later. The thing that really torques my beans is the absolute refusal of conservative xtians to even touch upon things like higher criticism. To be honest, I think the whole JPED theory of biblical documents answers SO many questions (in the OT...not sure about the NT) But if you attend a conservative bible school, that will not even be mentioned. And it's a shame, because it leaves Xtians utterly incapable of answering questions. They are making themselves STUPID. I'm the one in BS (Bible Study) who asked the questions that left leaders going *bbbbbdbdbbbdppbbddp* or saying "that isn't the focus of this study" or some other lame ass baloney. Pisses me off. I KNOW I am intelligent, but for 30 years this stuff was completely invisible to me. It wasn't in my world at ALL...and now I'm standing here, the rug yanked out from under me, pretty much reeling. And I was never a super duper literalist, either. What a biblical literalist might go thru, if/when these realizations hit them. Dammit. Christianity YOU FAIL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 From https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A16-17&version=KJV 2 Timothy 3:16-17King James Version (KJV)16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. The John verse plus this one is what I always leaned on to explain how the Bible writers knew just what to say. It's inspired by Gawd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wittyusername Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 The questions that Xtians can answer aren't what threw me off the bible. It was those that put xtians into that "deer in the headlights" mode. And sadly, there are as many of those as there are of the variety they "can" answer. The little details, such as whether Judas hanged himself OR fell and his guts gushed out? pfft. big deal. That one still doesn't bother me. It's a legit argument, that two different authors would include different details. Two biographies of Abraham Lincoln will have differences in detail. If we have four different accounts of the life and teachings of a man in ancient times, of course there will be differences in detail. Big woop. And if you believe in the sovereignty of god, it's no big deal AT ALL to give the writers the recall needed to accurately record the words of Jesus even centuries later. The thing that really torques my beans is the absolute refusal of conservative xtians to even touch upon things like higher criticism. To be honest, I think the whole JPED theory of biblical documents answers SO many questions (in the OT...not sure about the NT) But if you attend a conservative bible school, that will not even be mentioned. And it's a shame, because it leaves Xtians utterly incapable of answering questions. They are making themselves STUPID. I'm the one in BS (Bible Study) who asked the questions that left leaders going *bbbbbdbdbbbdppbbddp* or saying "that isn't the focus of this study" or some other lame ass baloney. Pisses me off. I KNOW I am intelligent, but for 30 years this stuff was completely invisible to me. It wasn't in my world at ALL...and now I'm standing here, the rug yanked out from under me, pretty much reeling. And I was never a super duper literalist, either. What a biblical literalist might go thru, if/when these realizations hit them. Dammit. Christianity YOU FAIL! What does JPED mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 What does JPED mean? It's actually JEPD and it refers to the Documentary Hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wittyusername Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 What does JPED mean? It's actually JEPD and it refers to the Documentary Hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 What does JPED mean? It's actually JEPD and it refers to the Documentary Hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis Thanks You're welcome. Apparently the letters are sometimes switched around. "JEPD" redirects to that page, but the page also refers to it as "JEDP." Regardless, the page gives a decent starting point for the hypothesis regarding the multiple textual sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
readyforchange Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Just out of curiosity, not only Mythra, but others who are responding in this thread...didn't any of you ever hear that answer? The one about the holy spirit giving the ability to recall everything Jesus said, and that's how we know it is accurate...because the HS told them what he said? Because that IS the answer that Xtians give, isn't it? When someone says "well, they weren't sitting there taking notes while he spoke" isn't that the standard reply? "well, see here?? Jesus *said* the HS would give them perfect recall"...Am i the only one who ever heard (or used) that? I mean, this is ex-Christians, right? that is, at some point in your life, you WERE a Xtian? Surely in your believing days you argued FOR the stories in the bible, right? Surely you used to lean heavily on the bible for all your answers? you believed it deeply and read it, quoted it, believed what the preachers said...? Anyway, like I said...just curiosity. if you haven't found my story on the ex-timony forum, just let me tell you I consider the bible pretty much bunk. I just know what Xtians say when confronted by certain questions. The story of how Judas died..."well he hung himself and then after he rotted, the branch broke and he fell down and hit guts busted open" ...right? anyone hear that one? Sorry if I come across confrontative. It just piqued my interest...these questions have been around for a long time. Christians have been "answering" them for a long time. Surely we, as such, had opportunity to answer them. Right? I think that even when trying to see it as the holy spirit providing the gospel authors with perfect recall, there are still parts of the gospels that seem to be difficult to reconcile or rationalize. For example, in Mark 2:23-28, Jesus responds to the Pharisees who criticize him for harvesting grain on the Sabbath by describing what David did when he and his companions were hungry. Verse 26 states that David went into the house of God when Abiathar was the high priest. However, the passage that is referenced here is 1 Samuel 21:1-6, which indicates that David received the bread when Ahimelech was the high priest, who I believe was Abiathar's father. So if that is the case, what really happened? Did the author of Mark make a mistake while under influence of the holy spirit and cite the wrong priest? Could the author of 1 Samuel have made a mistake earlier? Perhaps there is an explanation, but if there is, seems like it is not clear for the reader. Or with the four different resurrection accounts in the gospels, I find the details of which women went to the tomb, who was there, where did the disciples first see the resurrected Jesus, did the women tell anyone what happened, etc., difficult to reconcile. I know there is an explanation provided that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were writing to separate audiences and for different purposes. But I have a hard time understanding, for instance, if Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, why did the Jews ONLY need to know that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb - why was it that the Jews did NOT need to know that Joanna and several other women (beyond the Marys) were also there (in Luke, for the gentiles)? Just rhetorical questions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts