~Lady~:

But they lived in roman territory, hence greco-roman. They traveled a lot, and some were citizens of rome and rome was not a set place it included nations, and therefore they could travel freely about from place to place.

why not greco-hebrew?(pun intended)  

Yes I do and know it to be true. When they were written they weren't written to say ok this book will be scripture if that is the case then there wouldn't have been any need for the councils to decide which books will be considered scripture. they weren't scripture until the Church defined them as scripture. This was a point you were trying to make on another thread so please learn to be consistent with your point. It is either the Church defined scripture and therefore you think that scripture is man made and the church is the problem or the writers acknowledged that their writings are scripture therefore having no need of being defined so by the Church. You can't have it both ways, your points contradict each other, pick one and stick to it.

i concede that i can't have it both ways. i know that there were no scripture but some of the books of the old testament when the books of new testament were assembled. the scripture i alluded to in 2timothy does not mean the bible as we know it to day even though most christains mistakenly assume it mean the bible as it is today. the truth is that the catholic bishops choose which books to be assigned as part of the bible as we know it today, edited it to form a coherent narrative and presented it as the word of god. the catholic church assigned the names book of moses to the pentateuch, matthew, mark luke and john to the gospel. even though the writers were unkown.

Well that was my point, noah viewed only what he could see as global. Therefore when he wrote global flood, he only wrote of what he knew as the world and that was as far as his backyard maybe. The Bible is translated word for word and is not translated to fit our society.
I was stating that Noah didn't know that asia or the americas existed therefore he didn't know that the world consisted of these, so when he speaks of world he speaks of that which he can only see, not that which we can see.  

do you believe the story as the bible puts it or don't you? the bible says it was a global flood yet you keep insisting that it was a regional flood despite the example i gave you about the city of sodom and gomorrah before they were destroyed.

I'm sorry but did God write that down or was it the people that was narrating it?

the bible says that it was god speaking why are you still opposing what the bible says? here it is

13 And God said [/b]to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh,  For behold, [b]I will bring a flood of wate[/b]rs upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. [b]Everything that is on the earth shall die.    

do you still want to argue?

Um no the Bible had never done that, you assumed that that's what's being done. We know that Mark and Luke were not direct disciples of Jesus, you that don't want to believe in God, made yourself believe that it was written to give a direct account of what they saw, the only ones that give a direct account of what they saw are matthew and John. Mark gives an account of what Peter saw, and Luke clearly tells you in the beginning that he did his own investigative work and decided to write it, it is even addressed to a man named Theophilus.

lady lady, if they are not direct account of events and as a result they report events and mistake dates, time and what was said why then do you guys believe that the bible is the word of god? how can you trust the words of hear say and third parties which were written 60 years after.

Yes the message was to be spread globally but the writing were targeting different communities. Like I said earlier these writings were not written to be scripture, they weren't expecting us to have it bound as a book to be read in the pews. They didn't even know there would be pews like today, they thought Jesus was coming at their time, they were expecting him to come as they were undergoing persecutions, and as you and I both know it has been 2000 years.
Each writer had his own audience, you read these today as scripture because the Church defined these ones to be scripture, there were plenty of books that were written, these gospels were chosen because they were the earliest to be written and their account supported the teachings of the disciples, apostles, actual eyewitnesses. This is why the Church strongly believes in sacred tradition. Without it we wouldn't have known which books were supposed to be scripture or which was authentic.

are you promoting your catholic faith here or are you trying to explain that which is in the bible? there are so many people here on nairaland that will not agree with what you have written here. you keep repeating the words disciples, apostles and eyewitnesses. why were the gospels not said to have included the words of others? the gospel according to matthew, mark, luke and john is what is written in the bible.

None of the gospels contradict each other, they give an account of the same thing in different ways, like I said earlier they were all targeting different audiences.

how does targeting  different audiences explain the contradictory account of the events that happened with the story of the fig tree? matthew said the tree withered immediately while mark said the next day in the morning. when was the last supper eaten. one of the mark said on the feast of unleavened bread(second of the seven annual festival ) while  john said on before the feast of passover( first of the seven annual festival). what actually transpired at the tomb of jesus? how does targeting different audiences explain the irreconcilable account of events like the who, what, and when questions regarding that happened  during the resurrection of jesus? lets examine the reports according to matthew, roman guards were posted to prevent the body from being stolen away. they became as dead men for fright at the event of the resurrection as mary magdalene approached the tomb. (many apologists seize on this report, indicating the resurrection is the only explanation.) but, john makes no mention of these soldiers and, according to that gospel, mary, in fact believed jesus body had been stolen. there were no frozen guards nor even the angel to greet her as she came to the tomb. left to wonder, she went to the disciples in fear and shared her opinion that Jesus corpse had been stolen. this is different from matthew, again, in that an angel appeared to mary magdalene, sending her to the disciples, not with the theory of grave robbery, but the joyful news of the resurrection.

this is not a minor detail that can be swept aside with the common, eyewitness apologies that discount the higher standard required of the bible. This is the significance of messengers for heaven and what god communicated to the first witness of jesus resurrection. it leads to a second insurmountable problem for the consistency of the biblical testimony. when mary first encountered the risen lord jesus, did she know of his resurrection? according to matthew, she had. according to john, she had not. if the bible is not reliable on whether the risen jesus revealed himself to his own or was  revealed by angels to his own, when then do you guys consider it as reliable on the fact that jesus was physically and historically risen? and how does targeting different audiences explain this?

No you never took your time to study the Bible, and came up to a conclusion that it isn't rational. You never met people who could actually get you to understand the Bible using logic, and then when you did, you just couldn't handle it, that's why you have your undies bunched up right now. You just don't want to be proven wrong. You're hoping that christianity isn't rational, and you've been proven wrong, and now you can't take it so your best bet is to get riled up and fire insults our way.

when we apply logic you guys are quick to say its either a miracle or the story is an allegorical narrative. i don't rile insults on your guys, the only people that i have insulted on nairaland are davidylan (because he is always the first person to call people morons, goons, or people without brains who should not be taken seriosuly) and the other guy that said he will kill me if he meets me. i only insult christains when the call me a fool for not believeing in a god or when the insult me when i ridicule some of their pastors.

Those accounts were not written 60 years after the death of Jesus, it is impossible. All except for John were written before the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 AD and Jesus' death occurred around 30 AD, that gives 30 - 40 years and not 60, so please you all get your facts straight.

the first book that was written was mark and it was written around AD 60, i will send you the link, besides i saw it on a christain website. even if it is 30-40 years as you claim it still does'nt take away the fact that there are contradictions reported and 30-40 years is a long time to make put into question all the account of things that were written.

I prove you wrong and all of a sudden I am a mental gymnast? Ok, I accept, thanks for the title.

you haven't proven me wrong.

Bobbyaf:

I figure that both writers emphasized things differently.  First of all Matthew does not say that the fig tree's cursing occurred on the day following the cleansing of the temple. He simply said it was in the morning as he returned to the city with the rest of the disciples.(see Matthew 21:18) Matthew didn't specify which day he was referring to.

Mark on the other hand approached it topically, and specifically. He makes mention of the tree when Jesus departed for the temple, and during the following day after they were returning from the temple.

Besides, how different writers choose to describe the same event has no bearing on whether they were inspired. Inspiration doesn't rob a person of their freedom to express it the way they understand it, or desire their readers to see it.

Each writer had their unique way to express themselves. They weren't dictated to in which case they would be writing their accounts word for word.

if this two passages do not contradict each other then i concede that i don't know what contradiction means.

matthews account

Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered. [/b]20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. [b]"How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked. 21 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. 22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."(Matthew 21:18-22)

marks account

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it… In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. [/b]21 Peter [b]remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!" 22 "Have faith in God," Jesus answered. 23 "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."(mark 11:12-14, 20-26)

Going back to the emphasis I was trying to highlight. Somewhere along the journey Jesus noticed a fully leafed-out tree. Normally fig trees would bear the fruits first after which the foliage would flood as it were the entire tree. In this unique case it afforded Jesus the opportunity to teach a lesson that truly reflected the Jewish nation. The jews, and especially the religious leaders boasted and feigned spiritual piety, but they bore no fruitage of conversion. In fact many of the Jews were set on crucifying their own Messsiah before the very same week would be over.

even as a parable, we cannot ignore this point. if we can translate the fig tree into the people of israel, we must also translate this incapacity(the fact that it was not season for figs) into the nature of the people of israel. in this instance it would seem jesus is saying that the people of israel are being punished for not doing something they were incapable, by nature, of doing. its like if jesus punished the jews for refusing to fly in the sky. humans don't have wings and no matter how much jesus might want it, they cannot do it. how can Jesus punish them for something like this, especially when, as god, it was him who made them incapable of performing what he wanted (In my example, it would be god's fault for not giving human beings wings, if he wanted them to fly)

its also worth pointing out the jesus punishes the tree forever. it will never bear fruit again. how does this translate into the parables meaning? i don't think i really need to spell that one out. an eternal punishment for not doing something you are incapable of doing. not very nice, is it? i don't know. . . . I still keep getting stuck on the whole "it wasn't the season for figs" bit. had jesus understood this, and had patience, he would have known that in less than a year that fig would have fruits enough to feed many. however, he either did not understand that each tree bears fruit in its own season, or it made no difference to him, and he destroyed it, thus making sure that this tree would never again feed anyone. perhaps the same is true of the nation of israel. perhaps it simply wasn't their season. perhaps, if god had waited a bit, like the fig tree they also would have born fruit. however, the biblical god did not wait. it was not done on his time line, and so it was not to be done at all. my analogy might not make sense to you but that's how i see it.

I am consoled with the thought that your opinions are not[b] factual[/b], but you're free to express them anyway. 

let me answer this even though it wasn't directed at me. it is a fact that the gospel account are not found any where else apart for the bible and other books that were banned from the bible. there are no independent record of any of the events(by a contemporary historian or writer of that time) apart from what is written in the bible if there is any please provide it for us to see because you have to consider that it wasn't season for figs.

@ lady season greetings, i am presently in a new year party but will reply your post shortly.

^{in a yoruba accent} Same to you. How can you be at a new year party and be online? Hope you are not the host sha?

@ mazaje

I saw your post but I have to go and hammer my food.

why not greco-hebrew?(pun intended)   

I don't get it.

i concede that i can't have it both ways. i know that there were no scripture but some of the books of the old testament when the books of new testament were assembled. the scripture i alluded to in 2timothy does not mean the bible as we know it to day even though most christains mistakenly assume it mean the bible as it is today.

These would be the prostetants. And it is my point, so why were you saying what you said as if you didn't know any better?

the truth is that the catholic bishops choose which books to be assigned as part of the bible as we know it today, edited it to form a coherent narrative and presented it as the word of god. the catholic church assigned the names book of moses to the pentateuch, matthew, mark luke and john to the gospel. even though the writers were unkown.

The Catholic Bishops chose which books were to be included as scripture. The Word of God is still binding and considered the word of God based on the authority of the Church. The authority is the Church not the Bible, unfortunately the view of it has been twisted and that's why people are misunderstanding a lot today. It is the Word of God because it is called so by those whom God gave the power to bind and loose. SO it is no less the word of God because men defined it as such, because the power to do so came from God. So the Bible being revered as the Word of God isn't diminished just because Catholic Bishops put it together. The writers were known, how? Because of sacred tradition. The Church was able to choose the rightful books for the Bible through sacred tradition. Without which we wouldn't know who said what, taught what, wrote what, and did what. Protestants don't realise that they wouldn't have the Bible today if it wasn't for sacred tradition, they don't even know that the Bible itself is sacred tradition. So when they speak against sacred tradition, they're actually speaking against the Bible without knowing it. Lol, funny huh.

do you believe the story as the bible puts it or don't you? the bible says it was a global flood yet you keep insisting that it was a regional flood despite the example i gave you about the city of sodom and gomorrah before they were destroyed

1) What example about sodom and gomorrah?

2) *sigh* Ok one more time, Noah's view of the world was all he could see, therefore when Noah speaks of a global flood he is only talking about what he thinks the world is. Now because the Bible was translated word for word without any attention to fit today's society, global flood is still there.
The story as the Bible puts it is true and it did happen as several archaeologists have proven that a flood like that did take place in the region where Noah lived. What is so confusing to you and so many others is that you all think the world being talked about there at that time is the world as we know it today. It is not the same thing. Just because it says world does not mean the world that Noah saw is the world that we see today. Get it now. The Bible does not need to change, we need to understand the time and place, and culture these books were written.

It is a global flood in the mind of Noah, but what Noah considered as global is not what we today consider as global. So the Bible is not misleading you, it is actually giving you the full truth of how Noah saw it. You just fail to understand Noah's time.

the bible says that it was god speaking why are you still opposing what the bible says? here it is

One more time, did God write it down? Or did the person narrating it write it down? And what are you now a protestant?

do you still want to argue?

we will get to the bottom of it, if you will just answer my question and stop acting like a kid that knows it all.

lady lady, if they are not direct account of events and as a result they report events and mistake dates, time and what was said why then do you guys believe that the bible is the word of god? how can you trust the words of hear say and third parties which were written 60 years after.

Don't twist my words. They are direct accounts of events, but some of the gospels were not written by the eyewitnesses. Notice I mentioned sacred tradition, Mark wrote down what Peter had experienced with Christ, therefore making it authentic. Luke wrote down what was also handed down to him by the eyewitness and because he was a companion of St. Paul, and was well known by the Church as a companion of the apostles. It wouldn't be surprising of Mark and Luke actually wrote what the apostles said before their death and then presented it to their communities.
The Bible was compiled so that the Church can use it for guidance, I addressed this earlier actually so no need to be redundant.

They didn't mistake dates, time and what was said, you still haven't shown me these contradictions. I don't know where you get your info from but you may want to check it twice. Chris did the same thing you're doing now, and then he presented me with these contradictions only to find out that there were no contradictions at all, it was the site he got his information from that was wrong. So be careful to take on your head what isn't true.

are you promoting your catholic faith here or are you trying to explain that which is in the bible? there are so many people here on nairaland that will not agree with what you have written here. you keep repeating the words disciples, apostles and eyewitnesses. why were the gospels not said to have included the words of others? the gospel according to matthew, mark, luke and john is what is written in the bible

Then those people will have to tell us how the Bible came to be. The gospels included the words of others, have you read the Bible at all? Do you have a problem with the gospel using third person instead of approaching it as something personal? Newsflash, it wasn't meant to be a memoir of the person writing it, it was meant to be used for instruction in their respective communities. Just as my accounting textbook is written by stice, stice, and skousen, they are not personal and are not written in the first person.

how does targeting  different audiences explain the contradictory account of the events that happened with the story of the fig tree?

Different societies view things differently, I gave an example earlier of matthew and Luke, speaking to two different societies and using different words and backgrounds and such to explain the event.

I have to run to mass, will be back to finish up.

they became as dead men for fright at the event of the resurrection as mary magdalene approached the tomb. (many apologists seize on this report, indicating the resurrection is the only explanation.) but, john makes no mention of these soldiers and, according to that gospel, mary, in fact believed jesus body had been stolen. there were no frozen guards nor even the angel to greet her as she came to the tomb. left to wonder, she went to the disciples in fear and shared her opinion that Jesus corpse had been stolen. this is different from matthew, again, in that an angel appeared to mary magdalene, sending her to the disciples, not with the theory of grave robbery, but the joyful news of the resurrection.

Continue reading John and you will see that even in John Mary magdalene sees the angel. Just because Matthew doesn't mention the afore mentioned events of Mary running to get the apostles doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Like I said the writers were writing to different people, the way they describe the same event may be different, but it doesn't change the event from happening. I used an example earlier about the sermon on the mount where Christ gave the beatitudes. I said Matthew has Jesus sitting on a mountain to relate to the Jews who were used to Moses as authority, and Luke has him sitting on a plain to relate to the Gentiles who were used to philosophers giving speeches on plains as authority. To you these may seem as contradictory as you will try to figure out if Jesus was on a mountain or not, but to me understanding that these writers were painting a picture that their communities would understand they described things or explained things to fit their audiences.

when we apply logic you guys are quick to say its either a miracle or the story is an allegorical narrative

you don't use logic, you use conclusions that you have. You ask about Christianity and yet you tell us what Christianity is in the same sentence, so why ask? You're not asking, you're telling us. So we tell you what it actually is, and when we actually show you Christianity with logic, you scream foul.
You don't know about Christianity, you don't believe it, you don't take your time to actually learn it, you see one thing and then scream foul because to you it supports your view, but when in fact you look at Christianity as a whole your argument goes down the drain, and yet you don't learn from your mistakes. To understand the New Testament, you must first understand the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the New hidden and the New Testament is the Old revealed. Does that make sense to  you?

the first book that was written was mark and it was written around AD 60, i will send you the link, besides i saw it on a christain website. even if it is 30-40 years as you claim it still does'nt take away the fact that there are contradictions reported and 30-40 years is a long time to make put into question all the account of things that were written.

You still haven't shown me the contradictions, and no what you wrote up there are not contradictions. Like I said go and learn the culture and time of these people and then come have these discussions again. Go and study theology first and then you can attempt these discussions again. Until then you will not get it.

you haven't proven me wrong.

Trust me I have, but you won't see it until you go and study what I pointed above. And besides you've conceeded once before to my point.

@~Lady~: « #20 on: Yesterday at 06:13:49 AM »

I am Nigerian my main language is Benin and yet I speak English. Italians also speak and write in English. Do you get it? You don't have to come from England to write and speak english.

Beni language is spoken by Benin people.


[quote]
Most of the people living in Jesus' time spoke and wrote greek. Ever heard of greco-roman? For someone with "knowledge" you seem to know little.

What language did Jesus his sermon in? Greco-roman or in a semitic language for his people to his people?

The gospels are not written like a narrative fiction, you view it as fiction.

Facts should be written as it happened. If not, it becomes an embellished report at best.

However it is a narration and that's why it is in third person, considering the fact that the writer was not the only person present at these events of Jesus' life. The gospels were not written to be scripture. None of the books in the Bible or at least the New Testament were written to be scripture.

And they call it scripture. Why?

During a time of persecution the eyewitnesses were dying quickly and they thought it best to write down these narratives so as to have records of what happened before it got lost in time. While Jesus walked the earth, the disciples weren't reporters who carried notebooks and tape recorders to capture every thing that was said.

Most of the gospels were not even written to be read universally, they were written to a specific people, that is why each writer describes things differently. For example Matthew was writing to the Jewish Christians and therefore used images that identified with the Jewish people.

There were no Christians in the time of Jesus.

Luke wrote to the gentiles who were associated with greek philosophers and therefore used images that identified with them.

No wonder we have different accounts of the same event. The writers saw things through different PRIZMS!

One example of this is the beatitudes sermon. Matthew describes Jesus as sitting on a Mountain likening him to Moses and Moses is viewed as authority, while Luke has Jesus on a plain likening him to the greek philosophers as most of them gave their speeches on a plain, on level ground.

What is true; did be sit on a mountain, or in a plain? Plain is a flat land, not mountain. Mountain is distinctively higher that a plain. Can the two of them be correct; a plain and mountain at the same time? Impossible. If it was, it would have been reported by both writers as "miracle!"

So you see the gospels or any of the books in the Bible cannot be appraoched or read as if it was written today and to us.

If not written to you, how do you then take that you are part of the audience for the message. The Qur'aan says that Jesus message is for the Children of Israel, and not for any other group. You just confirmed what the Qur'aan says.

It must be understood as it was written, understanding the message one can then apply it to today's life.

Uhm. Using a manual of another people for your own condition is always a wrong approach.

If I were to write a narrative of Jesus giving a sermon, I would create an environment that had him on stage with a podium with a presidential sign as this is symbolic of power and authority to people living today.

If he did speak from a podium that has a presidential seal , then you have not written an accurate report about him.

So oga if you truly want to understand it, you have to first be willing to do the work. Learn the culture of the people then and how they reasoned. Then and only then will you fully understand the messages in the Bible

Truth should be the message of a Book that is a true spiritual manual.

[/quote]

Olabowale, I have asked you to get educated on Christianity before you speak, trust me you do not want to make this about Islam, because I will make you turn to your cooked up lies to save face.

You still haven't explained how pharoah used crucifixion on his subjects when it wasn't invented until centuries later and then by the Romans. You still haven't explained to me how Allah is so untrustworthy because he doesn't know how to stick to his word, all he does is abrogate things.


Stay out of my conversations until you can actually intelligently carry one. When you learn how to reason, you can approach me in a discussion, until then stay out.

~Lady~:


These would be the prostetants. And it is my point, so why were you saying what you said as if you didn't know any better?

that's the point i wanted to make all along to show you guys what a confused bunch you guys really are. you guys can't even agree on a single thing.

The Catholic Bishops chose which books were to be included as scripture. The Word of God is still binding and considered the word of God based on the authority of the Church. The authority is the Church not the Bible, unfortunately the view of it has been twisted and that's why people are misunderstanding a lot today. It is the Word of God because it is called so by those whom God gave the power to bind and loose. SO it is no less the word of God because men defined it as such, because the power to do so came from God. So the Bible being revered as the Word of God isn't diminished just because Catholic Bishops put it together. The writers were known, how? Because of sacred tradition. The Church was able to choose the rightful books for the Bible through sacred tradition. Without which we wouldn't know who said what, taught what, wrote what, and did what. Protestants don't realise that they wouldn't have the Bible today if it wasn't for sacred tradition, they don't even know that the Bible itself is sacred tradition. So when they speak against sacred tradition, they're actually speaking against the Bible without knowing it. Lol, funny huh.

even though some of what you have written are true and i agree with it, most of what you have written is pure catholic dogma mixed with catholic talking points.

1) What example about sodom and gomorrah?

read your bible lady

*sigh* Ok one more time, Noah's view of the world was all he could see, therefore when Noah speaks of a global flood he is only talking about what he thinks the world is. Now because the Bible was translated word for word without any attention to fit today's society, global flood is still there.
The story as the Bible puts it is true and it did happen as several archaeologists have proven that a flood like that did take place in the region where Noah lived. What is so confusing to you and so many others is that you all think the world being talked about there at that time is the world as we know it today. It is not the same thing. Just because it says world does not mean the world that Noah saw is the world that we see today. Get it now. The Bible does not need to change, we need to understand the time and place, and culture these books were written.

It is a global flood in the mind of Noah, but what Noah considered as global is not what we today consider as global. So the Bible is not misleading you, it is actually giving you the full truth of how Noah saw it. You just fail to understand Noah's time.

all i have to say is that you are a liberal christain. i showed you were god said that he was going to destroy the whole world and everything that lives in it, yet you still hold onto your belief that it was not a global flood and come up with the excuse that noah wrote down what the biblegod said and not the biblegod himself. i don't believe we can ever go anywhere with this kind of reasoning. its either you don't accept what noah wrote as the words of the biblegod or you do not believe in the story at all. choose one.

One more time, did God write it down? Or did the person narrating it write it down? And what are you now a protestant?

the biblegod spoke the words according to the book of noah. must everything lead to the endless catholic and protestant beef?(my friend back in naija can not even marry his girlfriend as i am typing this because he is not a catholic.)

  we will get to the bottom of it, if you will just answer my question and stop acting like a kid that knows it all.

you have not asked any question.

Don't twist my words. They are direct accounts of events, but some of the gospels were not written by the eyewitnesses. Notice I mentioned sacred tradition, Mark wrote down what Peter had experienced with Christ, therefore making it authentic. Luke wrote down what was also handed down to him by the eyewitness and because he was a companion of St. Paul, and was well known by the Church as a companion of the apostles. It wouldn't be surprising of Mark and Luke actually wrote what the apostles said before their death and then presented it to their communities.
The Bible was compiled so that the Church can use it for guidance, I addressed this earlier actually so no need to be redundant.

They didn't mistake dates, time and what was said, you still haven't shown me these contradictions. I don't know where you get your info from but you may want to check it twice. Chris did the same thing you're doing now, and then he presented me with these contradictions only to find out that there were no contradictions at all, it was the site he got his information from that was wrong. So be careful to take on your head what isn't true.

this is catholic dogma, and i don't even know what to do with it, you might be right though, i wasn't a catholic when i was a christain so i don't know anything about scared traditions. all what my pastors told me then was that catholics were misguided people who were all going to hell unless they repent and accept the true teachings of jesus. i showed you about 4 contradictions that just don't add up but you just made light of them and declared that they weren't contradictions. here is one. when was the last supper eaten? according to mark it was eaten on the feast of unleavened bread(second of the seven annual jewish festival) while john said that it was just before the passover feast (first of the seven annual jewish festival) so which is it lady? don't come up with your convoluted explanation that speaking to different people or audience lead to that contradiction. the last supper is a very important ritual in the christain religion so if the alleged eye witness can't even give the same account of when that very important ritual took place what then happens to the rest of their accounts? this is not an account of jesus passing on the street(hope you understand what i mean)

Then those people will have to tell us how the Bible came to be. The gospels included the words of others, have you read the Bible at all? Do you have a problem with the gospel using third person instead of approaching it as something personal? Newsflash, it wasn't meant to be a memoir of the person writing it, it was meant to be used for instruction in their respective communities. Just as my accounting textbook is written by stice, stice, and skousen, they are not personal and are not written in the first person.
 

ask them (people that dispute how the bible came to be) when you get the chance. you are just playing with semantics here. you are just  trying to make light of the whole thing. you are truly a liberal christain. fundamentalist nigerian christians who know nothing about how the bible came into being just take it as the literal and ultimate word of god without understanding why , how and for whom it was written. that mindset and reasoning is really doing the country a lot of harm and damage. coupled with the irrational actions of the slaves of allah.

Continue reading John and you will see that even in John Mary magdalene sees the angel. Just because Matthew doesn't mention the afore mentioned events of Mary running to get the apostles doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Like I said the writers were writing to different people, the way they describe the same event may be different, but it doesn't change the event from happening. I used an example earlier about the sermon on the mount where Christ gave the beatitudes. I said Matthew has Jesus sitting on a mountain to relate to the Jews who were used to Moses as authority, and Luke has him sitting on a plain to relate to the Gentiles who were used to philosophers giving speeches on plains as authority. To you these may seem as contradictory as you will try to figure out if Jesus was on a mountain or not, but to me understanding that these writers were painting a picture that their communities would understand they described things or explained things to fit their audiences.

you keep stressing that because they wrote to different audience it is enough excuse to explain away things that don't add up. i used to have a hausa bible and  the hausa bible was translated verbatim from the english bible. mountain was not changed into a plain so to associate it with hausa philosophers or hausa culture, it was translated just as it was written in the english bible. you are just building straw man after straw man here. when mary first encountered the risen lord jesus, did she know of his resurrection? according to matthew, she had, according to john, she had not. how does writing to different audience explain this?

You still haven't shown me the contradictions, and no what you wrote up there are not contradictions. Like I said go and learn the culture and time of these people and then come have these discussions again. Go and study theology first and then you can attempt these discussions again. Until then you will not get it.

so now theology is what i need to critically explain contradictions that are glaring abi? you keep on bring the excuse of culture and time, what has culture and time got to do with the fact that matthew said the fig tree withered immediately while mark said the fig tree withered the next day in the morning? keep in mind that they both reported what jesus said diffrently even though mark said " and his diciples heard him say those things "

Trust me I have, but you won't see it until you go and study what I pointed above. And besides you've conceeded once before to my point.

you haven't pointed anything out. i  conceded to your point because i am not the one that will see something starring at me right in my face and say it's something else. this accounts of events are only found in the bible and other books that were banned from the bible so their account of events should be consistent don't you think so?

that's the point i wanted to make all along to show you guys what a confused bunch you guys really are. you guys can't even agree on a single thing.

Oh no we're not a confused bunch, protestants are a confused bunch (I hope you get my idea). The Church is one, and we have one belief, and until the Pope makes a decree nothing is binding. So if you hear from so so and so that the Church believes this and that, and the Pope didn't release anything on it, then it isn't true.

even though some of what you have written are true and i agree with it, most of what you have written is pure catholic dogma mixed with catholic talking points.

Catholic dogma is Christian dogma. There wasn't supposed to be any confusion in the Christian community to begin with, when people strayed from Christ's Church we started having church of this and church of that. There is one Church with authority, and that is the Catholic Church. People mistakenly think that Catholic is a denomination. It isn't, it is one of the descriptions of THE CHURCH as in the BODY OF CHRIST, as in what he asked his Church to be.
So believe me I don't look at the other Churches, they are as confused as God knows what. That's why they're protestants you know. They attend a church and if the pastor doesn't preach the way they like, they get up and start another one to cater to what they want.
In the Catholic faith, it's not what you want, it's what God has told us. Plain and simple. Either you accept it or you don't. If you accept it you are in the Christian community, if you don't, you are not in the Christian community.

Why am I speaking on this? Because it is very crucial to you understanding the Christian faith. It isn't a promotion of the Catholic faith. But if one understands the difference between Catholics and everyone else you will understand all this confusion that is going on in Christendom. I know you don't believe in God and all, but you can at least try to understand us. If you want the full truth on the Christian faith, you know exactly where you can find that. In the Church (I'm hoping you know what the Church is by now)

read your bible lady

Don't misunderstand me. I am trying to find out what you are talking about, to me the sodom and gomorrah thing is random. It's like you just stuck that in there and away from the topic. How does it tie to what you were saying?
And where did you give the example? I missed that.

all i have to say is that you are a liberal christain.

Trust me I am not a liberal christian, the Catholic Church is certainly not liberal. And what I tried to explain to you is what the Church has been trying to get people to see for ages. The Church does not hold to the literal translation of Genesis, even some Jews don't hold to the literal translation. I'm sure you know that the Church isn't so liberal.
What I have told you is the correct view of Noah. So forget those people that tell you that the earth was created 6000 years ago, it is not true.

i showed you were god said that he was going to destroy the whole world and everything that lives in it, yet you still hold onto your belief that it was not a global flood and come up with the excuse that noah wrote down what the biblegod said and not the biblegod himself. i don't believe we can ever go anywhere with this kind of reasoning. its either you don't accept what noah wrote as the words of the biblegod or you do not believe in the story at all. choose one.

And I have asked you who wrote it down? God or the person narrating it? You still haven't answered my question. We will get no where if you refuse to answer.

the biblegod spoke the words according to the book of noah. must everything lead to the endless catholic and protestant beef?(my friend back in naija can not even marry his girlfriend as i am typing this because he is not a catholic.)

Lol, answer my questions above and we can move on from there. Did the Church say that he couldn't marry his girlfriend because he isn't Catholic or is her family being hard headed?

you have not asked any question.

Here is my question: Who wrote down that "God said?" God or the person narrating?
I've asked this too many times, and I can show it to you.

when was the last supper eaten? according to mark it was eaten on the feast of unleavened bread(second of the seven annual jewish festival) while john said that it was just before the passover feast (first of the seven annual jewish festival) so which is it lady?

The feasts of unleavened bread lasts for 7 days, the first of those days being the passover.

Leviticus 23:6
6 And the fifteenth day of the same month is the solemnity of the unleavened bread of the Lord. Seven days shall you eat unleavened bread

Mark 14:12
12 Now on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the pasch, the disciples say to him: Whither wilt thou that we go, and prepare for thee to eat the pasch (passover)?

John 13
1 Before the feast of the Passover, Jesus, knowing that the hour had come for him to pass out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, loved them to the end.
2 And during the supper, the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the som of Simon, to betray him

They are on the same day. I believe I mentioned somewhere earlier that in order for one to understand the New Testament, one has to understand the Old Testament.

fundamentalist nigerian christians who know nothing about how the bible came into being just take it as the literal and ultimate word of god without understanding why , how and for whom it was written. that mindset and reasoning is really doing the country a lot of harm and damage. coupled with the irrational actions of the slaves of allah.

"fundamentalist nigerian christians" are also known as protestants. No Catholic should think that way, if they do, kindly tell them to seek the guidance of their priest on that matter or to check with the Church documents, catechism, and all that.
And Catholics are not liberal Christians, you should know this by now.

you keep stressing that because they wrote to different audience it is enough excuse to explain away things that don't add up. i used to have a hausa bible and the hausa bible was translated verbatim from the english bible. mountain was not changed into a plain so to associate it with hausa philosophers or hausa culture, it was translated just as it was written in the english bible. you are just building straw man after straw man here. when mary first encountered the risen lord jesus, did she know of his resurrection? according to matthew, she had, according to john, she had not. how does writing to different audience explain this?

um it wasn't written to hausa people neither was it written to english people, and I didn't say that mountain would be changed to plain if it was translated to another language. I am saying that when Matthew wrote his gospel he painted a picture the Jews would relate to, and Luke painted a picture that gentiles would relate to.
So it doesn't matter if you are reading it in gibberish, it will still remain that matthew painted a pic for the Jews and Luke painted a pic for the gentiles.
I am sorry but that was a very horrible example, it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

so now theology is what i need to critically explain contradictions that are glaring abi? you keep on bring the excuse of culture and time, what has culture and time got to do with the fact that matthew said the fig tree withered immediately while mark said the fig tree withered the next day in the morning? keep in mind that they both reported what jesus said diffrently even though mark said " and his diciples heard him say those things "

uh yeah, you actually need to study the culture and time of the people to understand what the writers were trying to say. These books were not written for Nigerians, they were written to a certain people, so we need to understand their culture first and their language possibly to understand what they are saying. This is why the Church is the interpreter of scripture.
the same reason why matthew used mountain instead of plain to get these people to understand the message.

you haven't pointed anything out. i conceded to your point because i am not the one that will see something starring at me right in my face and say it's something else. this accounts of events are only found in the bible and other books that were banned from the bible so their account of events should be consistent don't you think so?

oh my goodness go and actually learn about these people that lived in that time. we can better understand what they're trying to convey and why it is the writers used different descriptions to tell the same story, when they do so. I am being very serious with you. I didn't understand a lot until I decided to start learning about Jewish culture.

@lady

all you have done is dance around, perform some mental gymnastics and promote you catholic dogma.

as i aforementioned all you have done is spin draw, biuld straw man after straw man and believe that you have made your point. all you have to your defence is that the people wrote to difference audiences but you still haven't explained to me how writing to different people explains all the contradictions in the narrative for example we have john wanting jesus to be the pascal lamb of passover so he has jesus being crucified on the 14th of nissan (the day before passover) and the synoptic pospels all stating it was on the 1st day of passover and the last supper being the passover seder.  this is a monumental and irreconcilable discrepancy. 

there is also controversy over the time (9am vs 12noon), who bore the cross on the way to golgotha prior to crucifixion (jesus himself or simon a cyrenian), did the two brigands crucified with him believe in him (yes, one did in luke 23:39-41, no, mark 15:32 and Matthew 27:44), his last words on the cross, (john "It is finished", mark and matt. "my god, my god, why have you forsaken me? ((which is like saying "myself, myself, why have i forsaken me?") or luke, "father, into your hands I commit my spirit".  did roman soldiers guard the tomb? (yes in matt 28:4 or no in John 20:1) and on and on,

matthew uniquely add details (unknown to the other gospels) that an angel rolled back a rock from in front of the tomb, a guard was present at the tomb, the veil of the temple was torn in two accompanied by an earthquake, and amazingly, many dead bodies of jewish saints in jerusalem were also resurrected and walked around the city.

sorry, but if i was a jew back then, that would convince me of his holiness, yet the jews still turn and don't believe in him  plus, this would have been noted by the josephus, philo and the talmud and the other gospels as well as written into the mishna (oral law and history). they are totally silent on all of this. this would have been one of the most important stories in human history. matthew claimed it was seen by many yet names none of the witnesses or who the saints were. if you notice, the bible is big on naming people as a rule. so lady how does writing to different audiences explain this?

mazaje:

@lady

all you have done is dance around, perform some mental gymnastics and promote you catholic dogma.

Mazaje yane?

mazaje:


there is also controversy over the time (9am vs 12noon),

@ Lady how does writing to different audience explain this contrary and formal contradictions?

Mark 15:25, It was nine o'clock in the morning when they crucified him.

John 19:13-14, When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside, Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. (When Jesus was about to be crucified).

bindex:

@ Lady how does writing to different audience explain this contrary and formal contradictions?

Mark 15:25, It was nine o'clock in the morning when they crucified him.

John 19:13-14, When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside, Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. (When Jesus was about to be crucified).

9:00 a.m. -- “It was the third hour when they crucified him.” mark (15:25)

12:00 p.m. -- Jesus was not crucified until after the sixth hour! john(19:14-15)

writing to different people ensured this contrary reports abi? lady. . . . . . . .

mazaje:

as i aforementioned all you have done is spin draw, biuld straw man after straw man and believe that you have made your point. all you have to your defence is that the people wrote to difference audiences but you still haven't explained to me how writing to different people explains all the contradictions in the narrative for example we have john wanting jesus to be the pascal lamb of passover so he has jesus being crucified on the 14th of nissan (the day before passover) and the synoptic pospels all stating it was on the 1st day of passover and the last supper being the passover seder. this is a monumental and irreconcilable discrepancy.

there is also controversy over the time (9am vs 12noon), who bore the cross on the way to golgotha prior to crucifixion (jesus himself or simon a cyrenian), did the two brigands crucified with him believe in him (yes, one did in luke 23:39-41, no, mark 15:32 and Matthew 27:44), his last words on the cross, (john "It is finished", mark and matt. "my god, my god, why have you forsaken me? ((which is like saying "myself, myself, why have i forsaken me?") or luke, "father, into your hands I commit my spirit". did roman soldiers guard the tomb? (yes in matt 28:4 or no in John 20:1) and on and on,

matthew uniquely add details (unknown to the other gospels) that an angel rolled back a rock from in front of the tomb, a guard was present at the tomb, the veil of the temple was torn in two accompanied by an earthquake, and amazingly, many dead bodies of jewish saints in jerusalem were also resurrected and walked around the city.

sorry, but if i was a jew back then, that would convince me of his holiness, yet the jews still turn and don't believe in him plus, this would have been noted by the josephus, philo and the talmud and the other gospels as well as written into the mishna (oral law and history). they are totally silent on all of this. this would have been one of the most important stories in human history. matthew claimed it was seen by many yet names none of the witnesses or who the saints were. if you notice, the bible is big on naming people as a rule. so lady how does writing to different audiences explain this?

oh my goodness these things are not contradictory. You need to get some knowledge on the times these gospels were written. I already showed you how you lack knowledge with the feasts of unleavened bread. You were so confident that you knew what the feasts of unleavened bread is, and you didn't, you went by your knowledge of what unleavened bread is to say that it was contradictory, but infact your knowledge was wrong, but it's okay, I'll be back to go through every single one you outlined here, it will take me a long time to do so and I don't have that time available to me now, but I'll be back

Let me answer on Mazaje's behalf (I hope he doesn't mind) You have turned the story into an allegorical account knowing that it clearly doesn't add up. Matthew and Mark reported it as an event not an allegory, on what basis does a person take biblical story as an allegory? why is the story of infanticide by Herod, or the feeding of 5000 people not taking as an allegory but a real event? This is not one of Jesus parables, It was report as an event. As you said the tree had foliage which indicated that it was ready for fruit.Thats not what I am interested in.Did the tree wither immediately as written by Matthew or the next morning as written by Mark? The new testament is alleged to have been the writings of the deciples of Jesus who were with him and witnessed all the alleged events, why then are their account of events so contradictory? These events were only recorded in the bible, if their accounts are so conflicting then it goes to show that the alleged eye witness did not write any of the books as the bible claims.

I am also familiar with the allegorical interpretation of this passage. In this the Fig tree is supposed to represent Israel. In cursing the fig tree Jesus is supposed to curse Israel not to bear fruit. To be honest I am not comfortable with this explanation. It smacks a bit of racism.
Yet the problem of historical fact and mythological allegories being conflated is one that is found almost all the way through the bible from the start to finish. Especially when the myths and iconographies are found in other cultures as well as the Jewish. It makes the literalist position very difficult.

I strongly do not believe that Christians owe you an explanation.of what purpose,I re-ask is the explanation?if sincere people want to know things,then they'll ask in humility and they'll get answers.

Q: Why did Jesus curse the fig tree?

A: Jesus cursed the fig tree to demonstrate dominion over plants. In the four gospels, Jesus exercised power over storms, sickness, death, animals, and even gave sight to a man born without eyes, so without demonstrating power over plants the scope of his dominion would not have been all encompassing!

Proof:

Q: Did Jesus not know that the fig tree had no fruits?

A: I believe that Jesus knew there were no fruits on the tree. How?

1. In John 4, he told a woman that she had been married to four different men and that the one she lives with was not her husband.

2. In John 11, Mary and Martha sent message to Jesus that his friend, Lazarus, was sick. Jesus said "his sickness was not unto death;" but when Lazarus died, Jesus told his disciples "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep" a statement that his disciples misunderstood until he told them that Lazarus was dead.

3. Jesus foreknew and predicted that Peter would deny him thrice before the cock crows.

The Bible is replete with instances that confirm the omniscient nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, so it is in order to believe that he knew there were no figs on the tree.

Why then did he curse the fig tree to demonstrate his power when he could have said "by this time tomorrow, you shall have fruits?"

Plant derived nutrients needed for survival from soil and the sun; and since it was not the season of fruits, Jesus simply suspended the supply of nutrients to the fig, thus the fig tree withered! Saying "By this time tomorrow you shall have fruits" is to violate Ecclesiastes 3:2.

Q: Did the fig tree wither right away?

A: Unlike man and animals, it takes a while to see the effects of death on plants. So we could say the tree died right away but took over 12hrs for the fig tree to dry up!!

The lesson therein is that through words Christians can influence nature!

,