Documenting Why the Gospels are Called, “According to So and So”


Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Question Mark

Introduction

 

Hardly any one disputes that the most fundamental doctrine in Christianity is the alleged crucifixion of Jesus (peace be upon him). And as such all the four Gospel writers were “divinely inspired” to narrate the events around the alleged crucifixion meticulously. One such alleged event was the anointing of Jesus (peace be upon him) for his pre-crucifixion burial preparation. As Jesus (peace be upon him) is attributed to have said in the Bible:

“She did what she could; she poured perfume on my body to prepare it ahead of time for burial.” (Mark 14: 8)

In fact, to highlight the importance of the act, Jesus (peace be upon him) allegedly asserted that the act (of anointing) and the lady would be remembered until the gospel is preached:

“Now, I assure you that wherever the gospel is preached all over the world,what she has done will be told in memory of her.” (Mark 14: 9)

Thus, the event, as it turns out to be, was very crucial and of paramount importance in Christianity. However, embarrassingly, this is exactly the place where it all went wrong for it. The gospel writers, even though writing under the tutelage of the so called god -“Holy Ghost”, could not preserve a monolithic, consistent and congruent account for the all important event of their “lord and savior”!

 

“God” breathed contradictions

 

For a substantial number of New Testament scholars, Gospel according to Mark happens to be the oldest of all gospel manuscripts. It is also claimed that even Matthew copied portions for hisgospel from Mark! In the light of foregoing, the Gospel according to Mark enjoys a high level of authenticity within Christian circles.

On the foregoing, the following is Mark’s account of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) anointing:

“Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon, a man who had suffered from adreaded skin-disease. While Jesus was eating, a woman came in with an alabaster jar full of a very expensive perfume made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on Jesus’ headSome of the people there became angry and said to one another, “What was the use of wasting the perfume? It could have been sold for more than three hundred silver coins and the money given to the poor!” And they criticized her harshly.

But Jesus said, “Leave her alone! Why are you bothering her? She has done a fine and beautiful thing for me. You will always have poor people with you, and any time you want to, you can help them. But you will not always have me. She did what she could; she poured perfume on my body to prepare it ahead of time for burial. Now, I assure you that wherever the gospel is preached all over the world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.” (Mark 14: 3-9)

That was Mark’s account. Since the event was very important, “Holy Ghost” even inspired John – the darling gospel writer of Trinitarians – to record the incident. Here is John’s narrative:

“Six days before the Passover, Jesus went to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, the man he had raised from death. They prepared a dinner for him there, which Martha helped to serve; Lazarus was one of those who were sitting at the table with Jesus. Then Mary took half a litre of very expensive perfume made of pure nard, poured it on Jesus’feet, and wiped them with her hair. The sweet smell of the perfume filled the whole house. One of Jesus’ disciples, Judas Iscariot – the one who was going to betray him – said, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold for three hundred silver coins and the money give to the poor?” He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief. He carried the money bag and would help himself from it.

But Jesus said, “Leave her alone! Let her keep what she has for the day of my burial. You will always have poor people with you, but you will not always have me.” (John 12: 1-8)

The two accounts of the “inspired” writers seem quite congruent on perfunctory glance, however, when observed meticulously there are appalling differences. Below we have tabulated them:

Jesus’ (pbuh) Anointing

Gospel “according” to Matthew

Gospel “according” to John

1. House of Simon House of Lazarus
2. Heals a skin – disease Raises a dead
3. Multiple disciples criticized lady Only Judas chided the lady
4. Perfume poured on head Perfume poured on feet
5. Act was symbolic of burial preparation Act was not symbolic of burial preparation
6. Lady praised. No such “inspiration” of lady being praised.

In hardly six to eight verses, we have five critical differences.

What makes it even more interesting is that even though Jesus (peace be upon him) told that the lady’s act would be remembered and preached throughout the world ever since, however, “Holy Ghost” did not feel it important enough to “inspire” Luke  – the so called “historian” to record it in his gospel!

However, the “Holy Ghost” did discriminate to “inspire” Matthew. Here is Matthew’s version, note how it coincides with Mark’s:

“Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon, a man who had suffered from adreaded skin-disease. While Jesus was eating, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar filled with an expensive perfume, which she poured on his head.The disciples saw this and became angry. “Why all this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold for a large amount and the money given to the poor!”

“Jesus knew what they were saying, so he said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? It is a fine and beautiful thing that she has done for me. You will always have poor people with you, but you will not always have me. What she did was to pour this perfume on my body to get me ready for burial. Now, I assure you that wherever this gospel is preached all over the world, whatshe has done will be told in memory of her.” (Matthew 26: 6-13)

So if we were to reconstruct our table, we would have:

Jesus’ (pbuh) Anointing

 

Gospel “according” to Mark

Gospel “according” to John

Gospel “according” to Matthew

Gospel “according” to Luke

1. House of Simon House of Lazarus House of Simon No “inspiration” granted
2. Heals a skin – disease Raises a dead Heals a skin – disease No “inspiration” granted
3. Multiple disciples criticized lady Only Judas chided the lady Multiple disciples chastise lady No “inspiration” granted
4. Perfume poured on head Perfume poured on feet Perfume poured on head No “inspiration” granted
5. Act was part of burial preparation Act was not a part of burial Act was part of burial preparation. No “inspiration” granted
6. Lady praised. No such record of lady being praised. Lady praised. No “inspiration” granted

All of the above sheds more than significant doubt on the authenticity, internal coherence and “divinely inspired” capacity of the “New Testament”. Because how in the world could,

1.      Trinitarian god himself – the “Holy Ghost” – who was allegedly controlling the minds of the evangelists give different instructions to different authors.

2.      The “Holy Ghost” discriminate Luke to keep him away from recording such an important incident?

We are not merely concerned about the differences or should we say “mere differences” because we even have conceptual and ritualistic differences! Note the following:

3.      According to Mark’s and Matthew’s narrative, Jesus’ (peace be upon him) being perfumed was an act of his pre-preparation for his alleged burial. So by pouring the perfume Jesus (peace be upon him) was allegedly prepared for his burial. However, John has a totally different account. According to him, Jesus (peace be upon him) asked the lady to save the perfume for later stage when he would allegedly die and then his dead body be perfumed according to the contemporary traditional Jewish practice! Thus, in John’s narrative there is nothing like pre-death burial preparation; all was to be done,  in the traditional way, that is, post-death burial preparation.

4.      How could the third “divine” person – Holy Ghost – miss out to “inspire” John that Jesus (peace be upon him), his co – god, has immortalized the lady. Note that John has related the above incident, however, he went absolutely silent on Jesus’ (peace be upon him) praising the lady! What is even embarrassing that Luke wasn’t at all “inspired” to record the incident including his “lord and savior” immortalizing the lady! Once the so called “divine son of God” praised the lady the way he praised, it must have become incumbent on “Holy Ghost”, John and Luke to record it since she was to be remembered for all times to come in all the world through these documents. 

5.      Furthermore, according to Mark and Matthew by pouring perfume Jesus’ (peace be upon him) body was made ready before hand for the alleged burial, as he himself testified. Accordingly there was no further need for a ritual of this sort.

On the preceding, celebrated Christian commentator John Gill writes that the lady was “inspired” by “Holy Ghost” to anoint Jesus (peace be upon him) at Bethany before hand, since she would not get chance to do it when Jesus (peace be upon him) is biblically crucified:

Mark 14:8  She hath done what she could,…. What she had in her heart, and in the power of her hands to do; she hath done according to her ability, and her good will; and if she had not done it now, she could not have done it at all.

She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying; or, “as if it was to bury me”, as the Syriac version renders it. Christ signifies by this, that he should shortly die, and that this woman came before hand to anoint him, and, as it were, to perform the funeral rites before he was dead; it being revealed to her by the Spirit, that Jesus would quickly dieand she should not be able to perform this good work when dead, and therefore came to do it before; or, at least, she was directed by the Spirit of God, because she would be prevented doing it afterwards;See Gill on Mat_26:12. (John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, Mark 14:8)

Yet defying the injunctions of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the inspirations of the “Holy Ghost”, the lady again tried to anoint the alleged dead body of Jesus (peace be upon him) after his alleged crucifixion:

“The women who had followed Jesus from Galilee went with Joseph and saw the tomb and how Jesus’ body was placed in it. Then they went back home and prepared the spices and perfumes for the body.” (Luke 23:55-56)

We can reconcile the above in two ways:

(i) Either Jesus’ (peace be upon him) anointing was incomplete at Bethany or

(ii) The lady decided to anoint the body twice.

However, both the above reconciliations have problems:

(i) If we accept that Jesus’ anointing at Bethany (pre-crucifixion) to be incomplete then it would beg questions that:

(a) Jesus (peace be upon him) couldn’t possibly had praised and immortalized the lady for an incomplete act.

(b) It contravenes the fact that it was divinely destined, as John Gill confirms, that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged dead body would not be anointed. Thus, his anointing at Bethany must have been complete and final.

(ii) If we accept that the lady decided to anoint the body twice, then we need to see in which Jewish tradition were the dead bodies anointed twice. As of date, we couldn’t find any such proof.

So much for the claims of internal coherence of the Bible written over the period of thousands of years by scores of authors!

At this particular point we will take another set of problems with the subject passages, namely, the gradual evolution of the Bible and “Christology”. Consider the following:

A.    Healing a skin-disease cannot possibly stand near quickening a dead body; no wonder in Mark’s and Matthew’s version, which is older than John’s we find Jesus (peace be upon him) at Bethany healing the skin disease. However, as Bible evolved and people wanted to embellish the status of Jesus (peace be upon him), John claimed that he was raising the dead at Bethany. The low profile skin-disease was now replaced by miraculous quickening of the dead!

To further prove that John’s narrative (substitution) was a mere act of embellishment, he goes on to write the impact of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) raising the dead:

A large number of people heard that Jesus was in Bethany, so they went there, not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom Jesus had raised from death.” (John 12: 9)

Note the reason(s) why “large number of people” gathered! It is not too hard to realize that Jesus (peace be upon him) couldn’t have had a similar impact and consequent large gathering by merely healing the leprosy as compared to quickening the dead! Thus, John in order to embellish the status and accomplishments of Jesus (peace be upon him) exchanged the act with a more awesome one!

B.     Another very important biblical evolution or let us say damage control polemics written by John was with regards to the critics of the lady.

According to Jesus (peace be upon him), the act of lady was a commendable as such John felt it inappropriate that other disciples of Jesus (peace be upon him) except Judas – the unfortunate one – would misconstrue and chide the lady for her act. Eventually, John aptly writes that it was only Judas who chided her, implying others were in perfect harmony with Jesus (peace be upon him) as his true disciples!

This theory further gets corroboration from the fact that where Mark and Matthew felt no need to explain why disciples (plural) scolded the lady other than that they wanted the money of perfume to be given to poor, John somehow got “inspired” and felt it necessary to “explain” that because Judas was wicked traitor and wanted to embezzle the money owned by selling perfume that he lambasted the lady. Re-read this:

“One of Jesus’ disciples, Judas Iscariot – the one who was going to betray him – said, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold for three hundred silver coins and the money give to the poor?” He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief. He carried the money bag and would help himself from it.” (John 12:6)

In fact, ever since John’s extremely negative, exclusive and biased portrayal of Judas, Christian commentators left no stone unturned to chide him and pass all the bucks upon his shoulder alone:

Judas, who cared only for money, seized the position according to his own interest. He saw, not the preciousness of Christ, but the desires of the scribes. His sagacity was of the enemy, as that of Mary was of God.”  (John Darby’s Synopsis, Mark 14:1-72)

No fair person would claim that Judas was the only person “seizing position” especially when, not one, but two equally, if not more, “inspired” gospel writers have written that multiple disciples chided the lady.

C.    Also notice the glaring embellishment that the lady in Mark and Matthew is portrayed to “anoint” or prepare Jesus’ (peace be upon him) burial by anointing his head. However, in order to adorn the status of Jesus (peace be upon him), John aggrandized that the young lady massaged Jesus’ (peace be upon him) feet with her hair (1.).

D.    While all of this was happening, “Holy Ghost” had his own reasons not to “inspire” Luke. Or may be on the foregoing biblical chaos, Luke preferred to remain silent.

Possible Responses

 

The commonest “explanation” which a Christian (apologist) might give is that these are merely “scribal errors”. However, this would be utterly weak reconciliation because:

I.       How possible is it that while copying the scribe copied “Simon” as “Lazarus”! Such an “explanation” opens door for copying errors to the degree of copying Allah (SWT) as lord and savior in place of Jesus (peace be upon him).

II.    How possible it is that the copyist wrote leprosy in place of raising the dead so on and so forth.

Technically “scribal error” is the error in spelling but nothing of that sort is found above.

We might take a concordant to approach to assume that such “errors” are possible, however:

1.      So many of them in merely 6-8 verses even though “Holy Ghost” was monitoring!?

2.      What about the capacity of errors! Simon as Lazarus, Leprosy as death?

3.      Was John’s divinely “inspired” polemics that only Judas berated lady – also an error!?

We could also expect a “reconciliation” wherein it would be proposed that the differing accounts of Mark and John are separate incidents. Nevertheless, such an explanation would have severe negatives implications on Christ (peace be upon him) and Christianity. And so, any Christian (apologist) thinking of it, should immediately drop it.

The truth of the matter is Bible is more a literature of history which underwent all sorts of manipulations from emotional to political to Christological influences. As such leading New Testament scholar Kenneth Cragg notes:

There is a condensation and editingthere is choice production and witnessThe Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history” (The Call of the Minaret, pp. 277, Kenneth Cragg. As quoted in Before Nicea, The Early Followers of Prophet Jesus, pp.33, Abdul Haq al-Ashanti and Abdur-Rahman Bowes)

Thus, the claims that the Bible has been divinely “inspired” to evangelists and is “purely God breathed”, sounds hollow. Subsequently, for a non – Christian believer it becomes extremely difficult to accept it as a divine unchanged word of God; to rely upon for fate and salvation.

We couldn’t have better ended this paper than quoting Christian Scholar Dr. Doddridge commenting candidly on the subject passages. He says:

“It appears to me more probable,” says Dr. Doddridge, “that Matthew and Mark should have introduced this story out of its place – that Lazarus, if he made this feast (which is not expressly said by John), should have made use of Simon’s house, as more convenient – and that Mary should have poured this ointment on Christ’s head and body, as well as on his feet – than that, within the compass of four days, Christ should have been twice anointed with so costly a perfume; and that the same fault should be found with the action, and the same value set upon the ointment, and the same words used in defence of the woman, and all this in the presence of many of the same persons; all which improbable particulars must be admitted, if the stories be considered as different.” The rebuke which Judas received from Christ at this unction determined him in his resolution to betray his Master; and therefore Christ’s rebuke, and Judas’s revenge, are united, as cause and effect, by Matthew and Mark. (Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Mark 14:8)

Thus, as expected, we have differing accounts by different “inspired” authors and as such we find it quite prudent and logical that sincere Christian scholars have entitled the Gospels as “according to so-and-so”.  It makes sense.

Notes:

  • Unless otherwise mentioned, all biblical texts are taken from Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version.
  • Any emphasize not matching with the original is ours.

Foot notes:

(1.) Christians may portray Jesus (peace be upon him) the way they like, however, in Islam, we cannot even assume that the honored, historical Jesus (peace be upon him), the son of Mary, could possibly would have allowed a young lady to touch his body, let alone, wipe his feet with her hair!

29 comments

  • Some of this raises interesting questions, but much is careless reading. Let us dispose of the latter first.

    Matthew and Mark say that the meal was in the house of Simon the leper in Bethany. Mark and Matthew both say εν βηθανια εν τη οικια σιμωνος του λεπρου (in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper); they specify the village, the house and its owner. Neither says that Simon was healed of leprosy on that occasion. Indeed, since a leper was not allowed to live inside the community (Leviticus 13:46), Simon could not have been a leper any longer at the time this meal was given. He must have been healed in the past and already have seen the priest and made the offerings for his purification, a process that took eight days (Leviticus 14). After that he had had time to come back to his home and re-establish himself.

    John says, ο ουν ιησους προ εξ ημερων του πασχα ηλθεν εις βηθανιαν οπου ην λαζαρος ο τεθνηκως ον ηγειρεν εκ νεκρων. εποιησαν ουν αυτω δειπνον εκει και η μαρθα διηκονει ο δε λαζαρος εις ην των συνανακειμενων αυτω. (Therefore Jesus, 6 days before the Passover, came to Bethany, where was Lazarus, the dead man whom he raised out of the dead. They made for him a dinner there, and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of the recliners with him.) This does not say whose house it was. It says that this was the village where Lazarus lived and that Lazarus was among the diners and Martha was helping serve the dinner

    So two of your objections are down to careless reading: there is no conflict about the house, because John does not identify the house, and no miracle was done on this occasion. Two people were involved who had benefited from a miracle of Jesus on separate occasions in the past; Simon, the owner of the house, had been healed of leprosy, and Lazarus, a guest at the dinner, had been raised from the dead.

    Now we come to more interesting matters.

    Mark says “certain people” were angry; Matthew says “the disciples” and John speaks only of Judas. Of course none of these are in conflict. Judas is one of the disciples and the disciples are people who were present. The focus is more or less narrow, but the narrower focus does not contradict the broader one; rather it is included in it. John identifies Judas as the chief complainer and records what he actually said, δια τι τουτο το μυρον ουκ επραθη τριακοσιων δηναριων και εδοθη πτωχοις; (why was this ointment not sold for 300 denarii and given to the poor?). It does not say that Judas was the only one to complain; it does record what he did say. Considering the scene, it is highly unlikely that Judas would have said this in a loud voice to the whole room; rather he would have muttered it to the people on either side of him, and they might well have been moved to agree and pass on the comment, probably without the specific price. Since people reclined to eat, this must have passed around the group from one to another. This is how gossip and innuendo are usually spread, in the absence of the newspapers and media that we have. Therefore, John puts the responsibility on the instigator, Judas, and explains that his dishonesty was the motive for his complaint. From the other gospels we also learn that it was following this incident and Jesus’ rebuke that Judas went to the chief priests to betray Jesus.

    Now we come to where the gospels say Mary poured the ointment. Matthew and Mark say it was on his head, but Jesus says she poured it on his body; John says she anointed his feet. Only the head and feet would be accessible, since the rest of the body is covered by clothing. Clearly the head is symbolic for the whole body, and Jesus thus applies it. But John speaks only of the feet. This is because of the different purpose and focus of John’s gospel. The other gospels present Jesus mainly as a man, but John presents him as the divine God-man. Whereas one human can anoint the head of another, we can only come to the feet of God. Therefore John does not show Mary anointing Jesus’ head but only his feet, because spiritually that is all she could approach.

    In Matthew, Jesus says, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. In pouring this ointment on my body, she has done it to prepare me for burial. Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.”

    Mark records it as, “Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me. She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burial. And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”

    In John, Jesus says, “Leave her alone; for the day of my burial she kept it. The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”

    There is no conflict here. John merely gives less detail. Every writer is selective with his material. For the same reason, Luke does not record this meal. He has already recorded a similar incident from earlier in Jesus; ministry (Luke 7) and has chosen not to record this one. As so often, your objection is misplaced. The remembering of Mary’s action is guaranteed by the other gospel accounts; there is no necessity for it to be recorded in every gospel. Similarly, there would be no point in having the same incident described with exactly the same detail in four different accounts; that would be merely redundant. It is the differences that are interesting.

    Other points:

    You say, “Note the reason(s) why “large number of people” gathered! It is not too hard to realize that Jesus (peace be upon him) couldn’t have had a similar impact and consequent large gathering by merely healing the leprosy as compared to quickening the dead!”

    This is in the context of your mistaken comparison of Simon’s healing with that of Lazarus. In fact, healing a leper was a spectacular miracle, because there had been no recorded healing of a Jewish leper from the time of Moses until Jesus. It was classed by the Pharisees as one of the Messianic miracles, which demonstrated that the author of it was the Messiah. For that reason, when it happened, it excited huge interest, as for example in Mark 1:40-45.
    (The other Messianic miracles were healing a man born blind and casting out a dumb demon.)

    You say, “Yet defying the injunctions of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the inspirations of the “Holy Ghost”, the lady again tried to anoint the alleged dead body of Jesus (peace be upon him) after his alleged crucifixion.”

    In fact, Jesus gave no instruction; he only gave an interpretation of what she had done. When he had been crucified, she wished, along with the other women, to do yet more, because she loved him. As it turned out, she could not, because he had already risen.

    You say, “…in Islam, we cannot even assume that the honored, historical Jesus (peace be upon him), the son of Mary, could possibly would have allowed a young lady to touch his body, let alone, wipe his feet with her hair!”

    Your prophet was a great womaniser, so it is not clear where this idea comes from. Jesus, unlike Mohammed, always honoured women and in Christianity there is none of the low status that Islam imposes on women; only, they have a different role from men; but in Christ we are equal.

  • Peace be on him who accepts truth,

    Thanks for your note, brother Oliver. I am on the move right now, I would soon reply to your insightful notes.

  • before you discuss biblical contradictions it is better to read about christian how it could have been scenarios which bastardize the text of the nt further and try to reconcile

    read farrell tills destruction of christian apologists how it could have been scenarios in trying to prove that the WOMEN came AFTER the stone was roled away

    contradictions in the ressurection accounts

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/22ef8fb8e069e4cb?dmode=print

    before or after the stone was rolled away
    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/c73555e87e13b678?dmode=print

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/585b5a05afc89379?dmode=print

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/09ae102aa85dd33c?dmode=print

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/43fda33dfcea05ac?dmode=print

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/e24c3cc5b5bedb6e?dmode=print

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/dbd6345d4a4e4eeb?dmode=print

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/a0438f8d2766cd77?dmode=print

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/39b6ad6c1afa4271?dmode=print

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/105a2f332aa8ffe1?dmode=print

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/a98bcb89971be614?dmode=print

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/c71e7e90e2e0d95d?dmode=print

    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/f5d92c86392f67fa?dmode=print
    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/4febd012c4887fcd?dmode=print
    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/7b2c7ba51aa2d4a0?dmode=print

    these ppl have no shame they make up any bs to remove the contradictions in their gospel accounts . in the discussions about nearly all christian explanations have been discussed and debunked .

    the most recent discussion is being held here

    http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/one-of-worst-christian-argument-i-have.html

    notice the length christians go to change thier what thier bibles say?

    “…in Islam, we cannot even assume that the honored, historical Jesus (peace be upon him), the son of Mary, could possibly would have allowed a young lady to touch his body, let alone, wipe his feet with her hair!”

    “Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.”

    the christian god in meat/flesh received feet cleaning . what were these deciples who put IMPORTANce on words doing? “permit her…” , i thought it wasn’t the flesh, but the words.
    the poor don’t get expensive feet cleansing and their hunger could have been looked after had the christian blood god permited the deciples to give to the poor instead of his feet.

    jesus’ feet were in desperate need of EXPENSIVE ointment, but people who were hungry were not important than jesus’ feet . jesus’ feet would have been buried with him , the poors feet would have been working hard to find funds.

    had that ointment been sold it would have looked after a village in those days, but christian gods feet required attention more than the poor who had no attention

    this womanizer god pops out of a birth canal, hangs around with women and has them using thier hair to rub ointment into his feets with would be replaced with post ressurected feet

  • “jesus, unlike Mohammed, always honoured women and in christianity there is none of the low status that Islam imposes on women”

    can you tell me what was the difference between an ill jewish girl and an ill non-jewish gentile girl? jesus said “let the children FIRST be fed …”

    “it is NOT GOOD to give the childrens bread … to the dogs”

    this is clearly giving jewish people higher status than the ILL gentile girl and her mother .

    in todays day it would be an EQUAL rights issue .

    the question is , what kind of a stupid and dumb as s response ” it is not meet to take the children’s bread and to cast it to the dogs”

    got to do with anything? THE GIRL was ILL and i guess the ill girl didn’t know what jew or gentile was, so why not have little mercy in your heart and help her? why help her only when the gentile woma DESTROYS jesus’ response to her?

  • “There is no conflict here. John merely gives less detail. Every writer is selective with his material. For the same reason, Luke does not record this meal. He has already recorded a similar incident from earlier in Jesus; ministry (Luke 7) and has chosen not to record this one. As so often, your objection is misplaced. The remembering of Mary’s action is guaranteed by the other gospel accounts; there is no necessity for it to be recorded in every gospel. Similarly, there would be no point in having the same incident described with exactly the same detail in four different accounts; that would be merely redundant. It is the differences that are interesting.”

    “Now, I assure you that wherever the gospel is preached all over the world,what she has done will be told in memory of her.” (Mark 14: 9)

    what a joke. read mark 14:9 again and look at the word “whereever” and then ask yourself if the only gospel AVAILABLE to johns audience was johns VERSION /story , then NO ONE would know about the praise. there are other possibilities, the praise from jesus’ mouth was MADE up by mark that is the reason why this DETAIL is missing from the other two gospels.
    AFTER luke done his “investigations” he discovered there was a problem with these one line details .

    jesus’ assurance can be DESTROYED today, just take johns version of the story to a village in india which does not know ANYTHING about the gospels and lets see if they can assume that mary was praised by jesus.

    matthew parrots over 90 percent of mark nearly verbatim agreement on the same incident which he had no need to do. one can see REDUNDANCY in john 1:1 where he is REPEATING the same IDEA in DIFFERENT words LOL LOL .

  • the jews governed the christian god. not one of them bothered to preserve any of his speeches in thier talmuds and other writings. how many people in the areas of israel would have known about small details such as jesus’ praise of mary? when john goes to another location he INCLUDES information which the other gospel writers DO NOT include LOL. this means it was neccessary for him to include the small details OTHERWISE people would have DIED not knowing jesus praise of mary .

  • Oliver when someone is a womaniser he would usually prefer younger women to be his sexual companion. The only young companion of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. was Aishah r.a. All the other wives were around his age or older than him. If he was indeed a womaniser why did he limit himself to only 11-13 wives? The people of Medinah were ready to give their lives for him. Had he demanded them to hand over all the women to him they probably would have. Did he do anything like that? No, he did not. Thus your allegation that he was a ‘womaniser’ s clearly stupidity on your part. In addition, according to the New Testament none of the great and lesser disciples of Jesus were women. Women were not only disciples of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. they were even teachers of the disciples of the Prophet s.a.w such as Aishah r.a.
    8000 female scholars of Islam : http://unveiling-christianity.org/2011/04/10/torchbearers-of-knowledge-in-islam/
    A comparison between the Biblical treatment of women and the Islamic treatment of women: http://unveiling-christianity.org/2009/08/22/treatment-of-women-in-the-bible/

  • “Judas is one of the disciples and the disciples are people who were present. The focus is more or less narrow, but the narrower focus does not contradict the broader one; rather it is included in it”

    here is the text:

    “one of Jesus’ disciples, Judas Iscariot – the one who was going to betray him – said…”

    you would think that your holy ghost god would clarify for people like you in the following words:

    “one of jesus disciples, judas iscariot,- the one who was a stirring- said …”

    or “one of jesus disciples, judas iscariot…said and the OTHERS agreed…”

    NO where in the text of john is there one hint that the DECIPLES agreed with judas or that they were stirred up by him.

    if someone were to look at the story in john and ask ” how many deciples spoke to jesus”

    the answer would be ” ONE of them…”

    “THE deciples were ill” does not mean

    “one of them were ill”

    in the other gospels the CHIEF complainers are the deciples, they were ANGRY with what they had seen and give thier reason

    1.
    The disciples saw what mary did and became angry.

    WHAT caused thier anger? What they had SEEN

    they thought that what had been WASTED could have gone for exchange and better use

    “Why all this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold for a large amount and the money given to the poor!”

    they are all mentioned because they are all AGREEING with each other and have something to CRY about and not ONE of them is singled out for STIRRING or instigating. it is what has been SEEN which pi ssed them off

    “While Jesus was eating, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar filled with an expensive perfume, which she poured on his head.The disciples saw this and became angry. “Why all this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold for a large amount and the money given to the poor!”

    Some of the people there became angry and said to one another, “What was the use of wasting the perfume? It could have been sold for more than three hundred silver coins and the money given to the poor!”

    why didn’t matthew/mark highlight about the
    “chief complainer” WHEN it would have BEEN the perfect time to do so

    1. they WERE ANGRY with what they had SEEN. THEY thought it was a WASTE
    They thought the perfume could have been exchanged and the money gone to the poor.
    this would be a good time for EACH writter to mention a little bit about judas’ role in stirring up people who were ANGRY about what they HAD SEEN.

  • As Salaamu ‘Alaykum,

    Please be aware that we should be careful when choosing our words, this is a sensitive topic for us theists and words can come off a bit too strongly even though we did not intend them as such. May Allaah continue to allow us to engage in civil discourse and may He allow us to be mindful of what we say, Ameen.

  • “Judas is one of the disciples and the disciples are people who were present. The focus is more or less narrow, but the narrower focus does not contradict the broader one; rather it is included in it”

    here is the text:

    “one of Jesus’ disciples, Judas Iscariot – the one who was going to betray him – said…”

    you would think that your holy ghost god would clarify for people like you in the following words:

    “one of jesus disciples, judas iscariot,- the one who was a stirring- said …”

    or “one of jesus disciples, judas iscariot…said and the OTHERS agreed…”

    NO where in the text of john is there one hint that the DECIPLES agreed with judas or that they were stirred up by him.

    if someone were to look at the story in john and ask ” how many deciples spoke to jesus”

    the answer would be ” ONE of them…”

    “THE deciples were ill” does not mean

    “one of them were ill”

    in the other gospels the CHIEF complainers are the deciples, they were ANGRY with what they had seen and give thier reason

    1.
    The disciples saw what mary did and became angry.

    WHAT caused thier anger? What they had SEEN

    they thought that what had been WASTED could have gone for exchange and better use

    “Why all this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold for a large amount and the money given to the poor!”

    they are all mentioned because they are all AGREEING with each other and have something to CRY about and not ONE of them is singled out for STIRRING or instigating. it is what has been SEEN which pi ssed them off

    “While Jesus was eating, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar filled with an expensive perfume, which she poured on his head.The disciples saw this and became angry. “Why all this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold for a large amount and the money given to the poor!”

    Some of the people there became angry and said to one another, “What was the use of wasting the perfume? It could have been sold for more than three hundred silver coins and the money given to the poor!”

    why didn’t matthew/mark highlight about the
    “chief complainer” WHEN it would have BEEN the perfect time to do so

    1. they WERE ANGRY with what they had SEEN. THEY thought it was a WASTE
    They thought the perfume could have been exchanged and the money gone to the poor.
    this would be a good time for EACH writter to mention a little bit about judas’ role in stirring up people who were ANGRY about what they HAD SEEN.
    ..

  • “If he was indeed a womaniser why did he limit himself to only 11-13 wives?”

    ONLY???

    “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)

    God’s model is one woman per man and one man per woman. Anyone who departs from that is looking at trouble.

  • Wharfe Dale > ‘“Now, I assure you that wherever the gospel is preached all over the world,what she has done will be told in memory of her.” (Mark 14: 9)
    what a joke. read mark 14:9 again and look at the word “whereever” and then ask yourself if the only gospel AVAILABLE to johns audience was johns VERSION /story , then NO ONE would know about the praise.’

    “Wherever” means “anywhere in the world”, not “in every document”. This has indeed been fulfilled, because everywhere the gospel is preached, the bible goes and it brings the account of Mary’s act.

    “The gospel” does not mean one of the four books of the bible called gospels. “Gospel” is an Anglo-Saxon word that means “good news” — the good news that Jesus died to win forgiveness of our sins and has been raised to new life in which we are invited to share. This is the message of good news that we proclaim.

  • any honest person can tell you today that the reason why matthew was written because it wanted to compete with marks version. matthew THOUGHT he would REPLACE mark like window 7 replaced xp and window 98. any honest person can tell you that books of the bible APPEARED alone . so johns “the gospel” would have been WRITTEN OUTSIDE israel and no MEMORY of jc’s praise of mary would have been known, it would have been impossible for a small detail to be known when you are STARTING from scratch and writing what you think is IMPORTANT even though LIKE a repetitionist who RETAIN more than 80 PERCENT of the story. i want to tell you about “good news” god so loved the world that he created 100 percent human flesh, hid in it, got it murdered to himself to appease himself, then god transferred himself from one place to the other using his own punishment and reward system on himself. you call this foolishness and pagan action that of a sane being?

    read your torah man, it says that the killing of IDOLS /idolaterers AVERTS punishment, i.e god does not leash out his punishment if person x did deed of killing idolateror

    torah says other peoples deeds can atone for them

    “God saw what they did; he saw that they had given up their wicked behavior. So he changed his mind and did not punish them as he had said he would.” (Jonah 3: 1-10)

    so to “change wicked behviour” would require GOOD DEEDS and this means God SAW the deeds of the ppl and changed his mind.no need of other persons guilt on the cross and murder on the cross mentioned in jonah 3:1

    jesus , according to the torah should have kept his “sacrifice” to himself because torah says that GOOD deeds and GENUINE GUILT can put an end to sins in Gods eyes. God of the ot doesn’t require DEPENDANCY on 100% created flesh /blood

  • Wharfe Dale, I think the writers had their own reasons for choosing what to say, under the inspiration of the Spirit. There is no reason why they should conform to your ideas of what they should say. We are to learn from scripture, not try to judge it.

  • Wharfe Dale: “…the reason why matthew was written because it wanted to compete with marks version.”

    That’s complete rubbish, with not a hint of evidence behind it!

    Wharfe Dale: “…so johns “the gospel” would have been WRITTEN OUTSIDE israel and no MEMORY of jc’s praise of mary would have been known, it would have been impossible for a small detail to be known when you are STARTING from scratch and writing what you think is IMPORTANT”

    No one actually knows where John wrote his gospel, nor does it matter in the least. Rather it matters that it was he who wrote it, and who was present at those events. All the gospels were written within the lifetime of people who were eye-witnesses to the events; the fact that none of them mention the actual destruction of the temple (as opposed to the prophecies of its destruction) strongly indicates that they were all written before 70 AD.

    If you claim to believe the Koran, you should realise that it was the bible we have now that Mohammed said the Christians and Jews ought to have read and believed. Mohammed did not dispute the content of the gospels (though admittedly he had probably never read them). He calls Jews and Christians “People of the Book”, and the book which they had in Mohammed’s time is exactly what we have now.

    Wharfe Dale: “read your torah man, it says that the killing of IDOLS /idolaterers AVERTS punishment, i.e god does not leash out his punishment if person x did deed of killing idolateror”

    No it doesn’t. If you think it does, cite the actual reference. In the theocratic state of Israel (but not currently) those among the Israelites (not other nations) who incited people to worship other gods were to be executed, but such an action does not remove guilt for anyone’s sins. I cannot find that the scripture ever says that an idolater himself is to be executed.

    Wharfe Dale: “torah says other peoples deeds can atone for them”

    and then you quote Jonah. (Jonah is not actually part of the Torah; that refers only to the five books of Moses.)

    Atonement means “covering” and can be done only by blood (Leviticus 17:11). A man may incur or avert God’s punishment in this life by his evil or good actions, though there is no necessary correlation — evil deeds often go unpunished in this life — but his ultimate rescue from sin and from its penalty depends entirely on the mercy of God through the blood of Jesus that was shed for all men.

    No man can rescue himself or deserve anything of God.

  • go to time 35:43 and see that the jew discussess your ref. its the only ref you flesh and blood worshippers can offer. what is your gods obessession with blood? does he drink and bath in it? did he see magical POWERS in blood WHEN he created it? or was blood another co equal INGREDIANT in the trinity?

    blood is not important in the torah because if BLOOD was IMPORTANT god would have told the poor to STAND next to the rich and OFFER EXPENSIVE blood sacrifice from bigger animals , if blood were IMPORTANT ALL jews , rich /poor would have OFFERED pigeon /turtle doves . also poor did not offer blood and flesh but poor gave other materials like SINLESS flower and other inanimate items lol.

    blood and flesh cannot AFFECT your spiritual world in any way. even if the jews sent jesus into the sahahrah without food or water and let his flesh cook under the son and your god died of dehydration and then your god used his action through jewish hand as vetoe for our sins it would not affect our spiritual world one bit.

    in the jewish understanding , the blood and flesh is not IMPORTANT , but the LIFE of the innocent animal . the life of the innocent animal is going to be taken away when the SINNER WATCHES the knife CUT the throat of the animal and then the affect it is meant to have is that the SINLESS life of an innocent animal WENT in a FEW seconds , yet the sinner still has his LIFE and should feel guilt for his sins for what he just witnesses ect.

    tom stark who knows hebrew has this to say

    http://religionatthemargins.com/2012/06/it-is-finished-for-richard-carriers-dying-messiah-part-2/

    quote:
    Achan and his family were killed because their sin had made all of Israel guilty, and in their death, Yahweh’s wrath against Israel was appeased. When Phineas killed an idolater, he was said to have “made atonement for the Israelites.”

    now stark is no christian apologist , this guy knows his stuff and what is interesting is that a sinner killed an idolater and was able to make ATONEMENT for israel LOL.

    ” but such an action does not remove guilt for anyone’s sins.”

    jesus’ action to himself and his other trinitarian persons does not remove guilt for anyone who sins. you can murder your god in your mind 1000 times and go to sunday church and depend on /put all your sinful behaviour in heart and action on your gods created flesh and blood , but it does not fix anything for you people.

    the point was the the ACTION WAS enough to prevent yhwh from LEASHING out his wrath unto israel regardless if guilt was removed or not LOL.IT was enough to make yhwh happy and to atone /cover israel OTHER sins/ guilts ect.

    ONe sec, why did i write all this when everything you said about atonement is addressed in the video. what a bloody waste of time.

  • “No man can rescue ”

    lol

    Ezekiel 14:14,20(JPT) – (14) Now should these three men be in its midst-[namely] Noah, Daniel, and Job – they would save themselves with their righteousness, says the Lord God.
    (20) And Noah, Daniel, and Job are in its midst, as I live, says the Lord God, if they will save a son or a daughter; they with their righteousness would save themselves.

    now think about it, you said no man can RESCUE himself , yet God says MAN CAN RESCUE himself through his righteousness. NOW look at the WORD nafs and eat your words .

    your god in ot says , ” yes man can RESCUE himself” blashphemer like u says ” no man can rescue himself” lol

    man, jews don’t even believe in a hell . lOL LOL LOL .

    QUOTE:

    Two different forms of the root verb נצל (nun-tsadi-lamed) are used in the two passages:

    – At Ezekiel 14:14, the phrase is יְנַצְּלוּ נַפְשָׁם (y’natsLU nafSHAM).

    – At Ezeloe; 14:20, the phrase is יַצִּילוּ נַפְשָׁם (yaTSIlu nafSHAM).

    In v. 14, the form is a conjugation of the verb in the plural 3rd-person, future tense, in the pi’EL stem (the active intensive form of the Hebrew verb).

    In v. 20, the form is also a conjugation of the verb in the plural 3rd-person, future tense, except it is in the hif’IL stem (the active causative form of the Hebrew verb).

    Regardless of these grammatical differences, in both cases the meaning is basically that [they] will rescure themselves [from a calamity; unlike the Christian application of “to save {someone from ‘hell’}”]. The message here is that each of them was saved from some punishment of their time – Noah was saved when the earth was destroyed by the Flood; Daniel was saved when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by the Babylonians; Job underwent a difficult ordeal, but was later reestablished because he refused to curse God.

    The verb is used many times throughout the Hebrew Bible. Only once in the form and context as in v. 14, and seven times in the form at in v. 20 – 1Samuel 12:21, Isaiah 47:14, Ezekiel 14:16, 18, 20(x2), 2Chronicles 32:15.

    Causative Mood
    In the causative mood and active voice the subject of the verb causes the action of the verb – “Jacob caused him to cut a tree.” In the causative mood and passive voice, the action is caused to be imparted on the subject of the verb – “Jacob was caused to be cut.” Each of these verb forms also have a name.

    Causative active – hiphil
    Causative passive – hophal
    Intensive Mood
    The intensive mood intensifies the action of the verb. When the verb is used in the intensive it may be translated as “slashed.” “Jacob slashed a tree” is intensive mood and active voice and “Jacob was slashed” is the intensive mood and passive voice.

  • “though there is no necessary correlation — evil deeds often go unpunished in this life — but his ultimate rescue from sin and from its penalty depends entirely on the mercy of God through the blood of Jesus that was shed for all men.”

    YOUR evil deeds go unpunished because you BELIEVE your god PUNISHED himself and that settles it for your EVIL deeds in this life and get free ticket to heaven .what kind of mind conditioning is this ? believe god beat his flesh via roman hands and appeased /pleased his 2 cosmic versions by making temporary “sacrifice” to them while at the same time retaining all other attributes like power and knowledge and if you believe that gods ACTIONS in human flesh TRUMP his all other actions god will not burn and destroy your flesh in hell , like it says in matthew? the mercy of god is not through self abuse/self harm but telling the human to CHANGE his ways and to do good deeds because good deeds change humanity , not belief alone.

  • ” the fact that none of them mention the actual destruction of the temple (as opposed to the prophecies of its destruction) strongly indicates that they were all written before 70 AD”

    luke wrote to ,for and about gentile christians .WHAT THE HELL did the jewish war have anything to do with his writings?
    luke knows about the war because he mentions other details which mark does not and this is strong indication that luke was already aware of the war, but the question is why would lukes christian audience want to know about jewish war. the war was to do with judaism not the pagan religion of christianity.WHAT idiot says that if the event is not mentioned in a book that means the book was written BEFORE the event? NO freakin manuscript of the gospels can be DATED to the first CENTURY .They stink of anachornisms and get things WRONG on judaism .

    luke is writing a story about what happen before the war and uses that story to impress his gentile christian audience . he is telling them how his religion is compatible with gentiles and that is major THEME of the book.the book of luke IS NOT written in israel , none of the characters in the LUKES story were INVOLVED in the war LOL, the war occured AFTER the jesus’ time and luke is more interested talking about whats going on in jesus’ time.

    the war was IRRELAVENT to his story.

  • It hardly matters what Jews say about the matter. 1980 years ago they rejected the Messiah of Israel and therefore, in 70 AD, the temple was destroyed so that they could no longer offer the required sacrifices. As a result, they had to reinterpret a lot of the scripture to make themselves a new, false religion.

    Christians (some of us, anyway) believe all of the bible and do not have to reinterpret it. We understand that from Abel right up to Jesus, the shedding of blood in sacrifice was required , because it foreshadowed the means by which God in Jesus would deliver us from sin and from its penalty.

    Soon, the church will be removed and after that comes the last 7 years of this age, when the Jews will suffer intense persecution, which will see two thirds of them killed; but the remnant will repent and call on Jesus to return, whereupon he will come back to earth to establish his kingdom in Israel and destroy all his enemies.

    As to rescue, there is first of all rescue from punishment on earth, which is what Ezekiel was talking about. No one is perfectly good, but in those days men could be saved, in anticipation of the work of Jesus on the cross, by showing their faith in God through their behaviour. But complete and eternal rescue from sin and from its penalty comes only through Jesus. Now, good deeds earn one nothing, because Jesus has been revealed as the Redeemer and the need to believe in him is now made explicit. Someone who has truly been redeemed will show that by changed behaviour, but that good behaviour is the result of one’s rescue, not its cause.

  • The book of Acts is the second volume of Luke’s work; therefore the Gospel was written before Acts. Acts finishes with Paul’s arrival in Rome and his staying there under house arrest for 2 years. Luke would certainly have mentioned his subsequent release, his re-arrest and his execution, had they happened before Acts was written. Paul was executed in the mid-sixties; therefore Luke must have been written earlier than Paul’s first release and certainly before his execution, and therefore, of course, before the destruction of the temple.

    Luke contains a prophecy (Luke 21:20-24) of the siege of Jerusalem and a warning to flee when that should happen, a warning that the Christians of Jerusalem acted on when the siege was temporarily lifted. As a result they were saved from the destruction of Jerusalem.

    None of the scripture is written only for Gentiles. The church is comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. Israel is central to the scriptures and to the plan of God, in which the church is a temporary (though very important) interlude. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple are events that are prophesied in connection with the death of the Messiah (Daniel 9:26). The New Testament always notes fulfilled prophecy; had this prophecy been fulfilled before the Gospels were written, it would certainly have been mentioned.

  • all know that jews continued with thier SIN SACRIFICES DECADES after jesus’ crucifixion so why not tell your readers that your god was late again to fullfill his prophecies.

    temple destruction could have been easily linked to jewish internal conflicts/sectarian divisions

    they could also be linked to another thing.

    you know ,torah prophecies that the reason for the temple destruction is going to be IDOLATORY and jews today say that the biggest idolatry is the religion which you follow.

    digression:
    your god allowed the pagans to beat him up and then as a punishment he allowed the pagans to destroy the temple?

    your religon was new and false. the the jews paul was trying to convert, they must have seen pauls christian style of bastardization of the ot verses and thats why tell him to disappear from israel

    “Paul said, ?It was necessary that the word of God should first
    have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge
    yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. ”

    it is interesting that paul never quotes your man god , this indicates to me that pauls spiritual saviour was not only met with argument and rebuttal but jesus himself seems ritual and law obessed in the gospels . so lot of religion changing was going on in your own religion

    cain and abel story has nothing to do with jesus /christianity.

    the story highlights the fact that god wanted GOOD QUALITY produce through HARD word/deeds .

    story is completely opposite to what christianity says

    quote

    Blood-obsessed christians always try to suggest that the reason for the acceptance of Hĕvĕl’s offering and rejection of Kayin’s was that Hĕvĕl brought a blood offering but Kayin’s offering was bloodless (i.e. vegetable produce). It never seems to occur to them that, if this were true, no arable farmer (however righteous he may be) would ever be “acceptable” to God, while all raisers of livestock would be okay, even if they were the most horrible people!

    Thankfully, though, God does not discriminate against arable farmers in favour of those who raise sheep and cattle. The reason why He accepted Hĕvĕl’s offering and rejected Kayin’s lay not in the nature of the respective offerings but in the two men’s respective attitudes: Hĕvĕl offered מִבְּכֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן “some first-borns of his flock—the best parts of them” (verse 4), but Kayin only offered מִפְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה “some vegetables” (verse 3). In other words, Hĕvĕl offered the choicest parts of his most desirable animals, while Kayin only offered mediocre produce keeping the best of his vegetables for himself. God would have been satisfied with vegetables (since that was what Kayin was in the business of growing), but He would not accept just any old produce: He demanded that His offering should be the very best parts.

    Is it any wonder, therefore, that He accepted Hĕvĕl’s offering and rejected Kayin’s?

    end quote

    you ‘re last paragraph is a joke. it just goes to show what jesus ‘ “sacrifice” has done to you ppl. when the text cleary says the people will be saved with thier righteousness this had nothing to do with jesus. there is no idea in the text that when noah BURNT an animal he saw that he was burning gods flesh to god or imagining that god was going to be beaten up and nailed to a stick . this christian blasphemous thought /anticipation is not to be found in the text and christianity distorts texts to find its blood obession in these texts.

    the idea of complete and eternal rescue from sin through “spiritual saviour” is not found in ONE PASSAGE from the torah. again and again torah tells the ppl that it is the riddance of idolatry and worshipping yhwh alone and doing that which is good in his eyes will rescue a person. when ever torah uses “saved” “to save” “salvation” “saviour” it is never used these terms in a christian sense , but always in a sence of COMBAT /FIGHTING enemy PHYSICALLY to rescue individuals FROM DANGER. absolutelyt NOTHING to do with sin or “spiritual saviour” .

    interesting to note that ppl have suffered in torah so that OTHER people /persecutors STOP doing idol worship .

    “Isaiah 52 (actually 53) does not speak of an “end to sin.” It says his life was given as an offering for sin, but it makes no mention at all of anything like an “end to sin.” Carrier is projecting a false parallel. In the context of Second Isaiah, what this all means is that it will create an opportunity for the nations to put aside their idols and follow Yahweh. There is never any indication that individual sins would be permanently done away with”

    you find many places in the bible where people are suffering so that they can bring ppl back to yhwh worship and not “complete and eternal rescue from sin” idea read into the text.

  • I can see there is no hope of your understanding.

    Nevertheless, the whole bible that we follow, including all of Paul’s letters, is the book that Mohammed said had been given to the People of the Book ( http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/onbible.htm ). If you prefer to substitute rabbinic reinterpretations for the word of God, that is your look-out and your responsibility.

  • any one interested in seeing olivers claims about luke ripped to pieces , take a look at this discussion.

    http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/close-minded-me.html?showComment=1311018731203

    it covers every apologetic he has repeated.

  • interesting information below

    Paul

    We don’t know how Paul died. We don’t know when. How can we say the author of Acts would certainly include Paul’s death, if we don’t even know how and when he died? Would the author have included it if Paul died by shipwreck? By disease? By a knife fight in an alley? By being martyred? By other Christians?

    The outcome of Paul’s trial is equally problematic. Did he win? Did he lose? Did it even happen? Again, if Paul died from disease prior to the trial, this makes perfect sense why it wasn’t listed. Or if he lost. We simply don’t know, and to speculate what happened adds silence upon silence, removing all but a feather’s weight of credibility.

    (Sometimes people claim Luke wrote so much about the trial leading up to the ending and he wouldn’t have mentioned it at all if Paul lost. Not true—if Paul lost, that is all the MORE reason to give the long-winded substantiation. In my practice, at times, I ask the question, “Have you been convicted of a felony?” I receive two answers:

    1) “No.”
    2) “Let me tell you what happened….”

    No one says outright, “Yes, I was convicted”—first they want to give an explanation. Like Luke does for Paul.)

    The Jewish Revolt has no bearing on the missionary work, or the doctrinal continuity, and therefore would have no need to be included. The typical reason listed would be to paint the Jews in a bad light under the first purpose listed.

    However, we have to look at Acts itself. It discusses Jews vs Christians as compared to Romans vs. Christians, painting the Romans in a positive, receptive light, and the Jews as the belligerent, confrontational type. The entire book deals with Christians interacting with others.

    The Jewish revolt had to do with internal Jewish problems (conservative v more modernistic) and Jews vs. Romans. The Revolt had NOTHING to do with Christianity.

    I have always been curious, to the people who claim Acts would have mentioned the Jewish Wars if it was written in 90 CE.

    Where?

    Where would Acts include the Revolt, and how would it work its way into the passage? The book ends in approximately 62 CE—is the apologist claiming the author would have extended the book on to include the events of 70 CE? Why?—there were no Christians involved! The recipients would state, “That is nice and all, but what does it have to do with us?” Absolutely nothing.

    Is the apologist stating the authors would have included it a prophetic statement? Luke already did in his first book, copying Mark 13.
    when was acts written

    7. Luke stresses twice Barabbas was an insurrection; Mark only states it once.

    This is (surprising at 7) probably the strongest argument. Luke appears to emphasize the Jews were willing to support insurrection rather than let the (innocent) Jesus go free. Yet again, Luke consistently paints the Jews unfavorably. Why isn’t this just another example of such?

    8. Luke is explicit about the charge against Jesus.

    Luke, in copying Mark and Matthew, deliberately “cleans up” any particular point he finds problematic. For example, realizing the Sanhedrin would never meet at night (specifically on Passover!), he “moves” the Sanhedrin hearing to the morning. (Luke 22:66) Not surprising, if Luke thought the accusation of “He calls himself the King of the Jews” was insufficient to add the accusation of insurrection and not paying taxes. Luke then lapses back to Markan language.

    9: Pilate’s language.

    Same answer as above.

    10. Luke lists a trial before Herod as well.

    Yeah. Again, Luke wants not only the Judean Religious leaders held accountable—he wants to make sure the Galilean political government is as well, so he makes up this story about Herod. No reason to find this historical.

    1a. Why would Gentile Christians be concerned about when Jesus was establishing his kingdom?

    This one is a bit frustrating. I have answered this so many times; I am baffled how it could possibly still be a question.

    Because the parousia (return of Christ) was not happening as fast as Christians thought it would. They were starting to question it. So Luke creates (this account in Acts 1 is completely made up, of course) a solution by indicating Jesus was not precise to his coming. That they may have to wait another 100 years. (or 2000 as it turns out. And 10,000 more until somebody cottons on.)

    2a. Luke says “The kingdom of God is within you” so the Romans realized they had nothing to fear from Christians.

    Rome didn’t give a rat’s patooey about what a particular sect, religion, group or society claimed–it cared about results. Claiming some internal gnosis was part and parcel of Gnosticism–yet that didn’t mean Rome would say, “Oh, we won’t bother the Gnostics, because they are ‘internal.’’ Give me a break.

    3a. The Roman Centurion says “This man was innocent.”

    First, Luke completely misses Mark’s irony and biffs the statement. Second, as pointed out above, Luke is highlighting the guilt of the Jews, contrasting the innocence of the Roman officials involved. The poor executioner was only doing his job.

    4a. The Romans would appreciate how the criminal on the cross said he would meet Jesus in his Kingdom, and since they were dying, the Romans would have seen the kingdom was not of this world.

    This is what I mean by applying a 21st Century mindset to 1st Century culture. Do you really think the Romans were this precise in their theological/legal machinations to make such fine distinctions? Rome cared about RESULTS. Not doctrinal niceties. If you were causing trouble, they charged you, tortured you and executed you. They didn’t sit around with cigars, glasses of brandy, stroking their beards with, “I say, old chap. I think this criminal here must indicate the kingdom is in the after-life, so these insurrections at the heart of every riot should be let free with a ‘hip, hip’ and a ‘cherrie-o.’”

    http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2011/06/close-minded-me.html?showComment=1311018731203

  • i want to address this bs again, it is nothing but bs.

    ” but in those days men could be saved, in anticipation of the work of Jesus on the cross, by showing their faith in God through their behaviour. But complete and eternal rescue from sin and from its penalty comes only through Jesus”

    QUOTE:
    In Hebrew culture, it has never been considered sufficient merely to say that one feels remorse for having done something wrong and that one is “sorry” for having done it. The Torah prescribes that, on Yom Kippur, when we come together as a community to “repent” and seek forgiveness for all the wrongs we have done in the preceding year, we are to “make our bodies suffer” (Vayikra 16:31, 23:27, 23:32; B’midbar 29:7), a term that means fasting (abstaining from both food and drink). Prayer is also implied, because fasting without prayer is both meaningless and pointless. In Biblical times fasting was accompanied by the symbolic act of dressing in sacking, which is coarse and uncomfortable, and also very unattractive. By making these sacrifices (using that word in a very loose and general sense) the penitent demonstrates his remorse in a very practical way, and they are far more meaningful “sacrifices” than slaughtering an ox or a goat that never did anyone any harm. It will be seen from the passage from Yonah quoted above that the people of Nin’veh adopted all these practices: their king ordered them to abandon their wicked behaviour, to fast, and to dress in sacking, and to pray for forgiveness. He himself even went one step further, humbling himself by “rising from his throne and sitting on ashes”. Verse 9 shows that he didn’t even know for sure whether their “repentance” would “save” them (Who knows, perhaps God will relent and change His mind…), but the following verse states clearly that it did, and that it was their practical demonstration of remorse that led to them being forgiven: “And when God saw their deeds – that they had returned from their evil ways…”

    SO IT WAS sincere human deeds/efforts/works WHICH GOD HAD SEEN, he (God) did not see what the romans were going to do to jesus’ CREATED flesh before He changed his mind

    “God saw what they did; he saw that they had given up their wicked behavior. So he changed his mind and did not punish them as he had said he would.” (Jonah 3: 1-10)

    if Noah didn’t build the boat and trust in god he would have been doomed
    where would he have been doomed? in an eternal hell
    what is interesting is that jesus only suffers for 6 hours and this worldly punishment in christian theology is converted ETERNITY in hell even though jesus didn’t SUFFER ETERNITY in hell. but NOAH SAVED himself from an ETERNITY in hell because if he had disobeyed god he would have ENDED in an ETERNAL HELL like those who had drowned. same can be said about the people in jonah 3:1. they averting eternal punishment because of CHANGING thier ways and jesus’ DEAD flesh or blood was not part of the changing .

  • jesus suffers for six hours. his soul is not destroyed in hell and neither is his flesh burnt in hell. he suffers 6 hours and christianity converts it to an eternity in hell. but ppl , SUFFERING is about feeling pain physically and psychologicallt. can an all powerful god FEEL PAIN OR feel how the FIRES Of hell taste/feel like or feel psycholigical pain like humans?

    so if jesus’ HUMAN suffering lasted only 6 hours and NOAH averted ETERNAL HELL FIRE, UNLIKE those who DROWNED ,then according to christian view noah saved himself from ETERNAL HELL.

  • clarification

    jesus’ temporary suffering in his humanity = 6 hours but converted to an ETERNITY in hell even though he didn’t suffer ETERNITY in hell and at best he could pay for only 1 human becaue millions will SUFFER eternity in hell

    The people who had drowned will suffer ETERNITY IN HELL with their soul and flesh being destroyed

    the people who drowned suffered more than jesus’ humanity .

    Noah averted eternal punishment through his works/deeds/trust/ effort

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s