by JosephAlward 45 Replies latest watchtower bible
It was COMMON PRACTICE for shepherd's AND journeymen to carry along with them an EXTRA staff. Since it was also used as a weapon to whack at the big bad wolves, many times they got broken.
That's what is being said by Jesus, don't bring anything EXTRA.
Too simple for ya Joe?
<< It was COMMON PRACTICE for shepherd's AND journeymen to carry along with them an EXTRA staff. >>
I don't know much about ancient middle east shepherd practices, but it wouldn't suprise me that someone thoughtful would take an extra staff into places where trees were scarce.
Bang
Mark said Jesus told his disciples to carry a staff:
These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff...” (Mark 6:8)However, Luke tells us that Jesus wanted them to take no staff:
He told them: "Take nothing for the journey--no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. (Luke 9:3)Pom and Bang claim that Luke really meant that the disciples should not take an extra staff. In other words, these boys want us to believe that Luke assumed we would automatically imagine that the word "extra" appeared between the two words, "no staff" in the verse above. This assertion is laughable on its face. Why didn't Luke just come right out and say, "no extra staff" if that is really what he meant? Where in the Bible or in any historical record has anyone ever carried two walking sticks?
Furthermore, if Pom and Bang can assert with zero textual evidence that Luke meant "no extra staff," in verse 9:3 above, then why don't they consistently apply this rule to the words "bag," "bread," and "money"? Thus, even though Luke clearly says take "no bag," "no bread," and "no money," Pom and Bang would have to conclude--using their own logic--that Luke meant that the disciples were to take "no extra bread," "no extra bag," and "no extra money," even though Luke never once used or implied the word "extra." Do they see how ridiculous their argument is?
Pom and Bang are exercising the kind of faith the author of Hebrews speaks of:
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1)Pom and Bang hope that Luke meant "extra," but they cannot see evidence of this anywhere in the Bible, or outside of it in historical records, and they cannot explain why Luke didn't use the word "extra" if that's really what he meant. They can continue to hope that there is no error in the Bible, but hope will not make it so, unless it is only in their dreams that things come true.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
>>Where in the Bible or in any historical record has anyone ever carried two walking sticks?<<
Right here Joe. Missed it eh?
Zech 11:7
7 So I pastured the flock marked for slaughter, particularly the oppressed of the flock. Then I took two staffs and called one Favor and the other Union, and I pastured the flock.
I believe you are wrong Joe. Don't you see you are wrong? Come on Joe. Admit it. If indeed a shepherd carried two staffs, as here in Zechariah, then Christ would have meant no extra staff wouldn't he?
Yes he would.
Good Bye Joe. I believe you're a loser.
PS Joe. The second staff was strapped across the shepherds back. ALWAYS.
Ahhhh bah bye.
Pomegranate:
If indeed a shepherd carried two staffs, as here in Zechariah, then Christ would have meant no extra staff wouldn't he?Please provide proof of the link you give above. A signed deposition from Jesus will do nicely.
Also, you have yet to demonstrate that "no staff" = "no extra staff", or give satisfactory proof as to this being the intent of the writers.
The second staff was strapped across the shepherds back. ALWAYS.Again, proof please. A photograph of every biblical shepherd clearly showing the second staff will do nicely.
In fact, your theory is just that, a theory. You have NO way of proving, or of providing quantifiable evidence, that it is an accurate explanation for this apparent biblical discrepancy.
Carry on jumping through hoops.
Expatbrit
Pom has found evidence of one person in the Bible carrying two staffs, and I was, indeed, unaware of this verse. It only shows, however, that ONE person carried two staffs ONCE; it by no means is evidence that anyone else ever did it even once, let alone that it was a common enough practice that Jesus would need to ask his disciples not to carry two staffs. Furthermore, this particular person is using the staffs to shepherd sheep; he is not journeying overland, as would be the case for the disciples. However, I will remove the single sentence in my last post which called for Pom to provide evidence that someone in the Bible ever carried two staffs.
I will repeat my argument for Pom. This time he will have to address the question of why Luke didn't bother to have Jesus use the word "extra," if that's what he really meant.
Pom also needs to explain why he selectively applies the word "extra" only to the word "staff," and not to bag, bread, and money.
Here is the argument once again, without the offending sentence:
....
Mark said Jesus told his disciples to carry a staff:
These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff...” (Mark 6:8)
However, Luke tells us that Jesus wanted them to take no staff:
He told them: "Take nothing for the journey--no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. (Luke 9:3)
Pom and Bang claim that Luke really meant that the disciples should not take an extra staff. In other words, these boys want us to believe that Luke assumed we would automatically imagine that the word "extra" appeared between the two words, "no staff" in the verse above. This assertion is laughable on its face. Why didn't Luke just come right out and say, "no extra staff" if that is really what he meant?
Furthermore, if Pom and Bang can assert with zero textual evidence that Luke meant "no extra staff," in verse 9:3 above, then why don't they consistently apply this rule to the words "bag," "bread," and "money"? Thus, even though Luke clearly says take "no bag," "no bread," and "no money," Pom and Bang would have to conclude--using their own logic--that Luke meant that the disciples were to take "no extra bread," "no extra bag," and "no extra money," even though Luke never once used or implied the word "extra." Do they see how ridiculous their argument is?
Pom and Bang are exercising the kind of faith the author of Hebrews speaks of:
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1)
Pom and Bang hope that Luke meant "extra," but they cannot see evidence of this anywhere in the Bible, or outside of it in historical records, and they cannot explain why Luke didn't use the word "extra" if that's really what he meant. They can continue to hope that there is no error in the Bible, but hope will not make it so, unless it is only in their dreams that things come true.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
Joseph writes:
In other words, these boys want us to believe that Luke assumed we would automatically imagine that the word "extra" appeared between the two words, "no staff" in the verse above.No, they're your 'other words' - that's what you want to say I said, as a means of presenting some kind of argument. What I was saying is that two gospel writers related two different ideas in language, whether or not the staff was extra like the sandals.
There's plenty of textual evidence for people saying different things to one another while speaking truthfully in the manner it is said. First to mind for me is John saying 'I'm not Elijah' or 'I did not know Him', and of course Peter talking about Judas, as you know.
You know, there's many people who say they are willing to be a christian but only if someone can prove it to them - they 'seek for a sign'. The 'errors' you find can well be the mind's door out, if that's really your desire, He's not forcing anyone.
Bang
Bang writes,
"You know, there's many people who say they are willing to be a christian but only if someone can prove it to them - they 'seek for a sign'. The 'errors' you find can well be the mind's door out, if that's really your desire, He's not forcing anyone."
The comment above by Bang shows how limited and naive his world view is. He doesn't realize that there are millions of muslims who believe that Bang would accept Allah as his god if only he would accept the Koran as his Bible and not seek errors in it. Bang would be a muslim, they say, if he would not wait for someone to prove it to him, or wait for a sign that Islam is true.
Now, putting that aside, Bang, are you willing now to explain to the forum why you think it's reasonable to believe that Luke really meant "no EXTRA staff," even though he only said "no staff"?
If that's NOT what you believe, then how in the world do you explain why Luke's verse does not contradict Mark's verse?
And, if you DO believe that Luke meant for us to mentally insert "extra" between the words "no" and "staff," what evidence do you offer in support of your claim? Furthermore, why do you not consistently apply that rule to the words "bag,"bread," and "money"?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
Joseph writes:
He doesn't realize that there are millions of muslims who believe that Bang would accept Allah as his god if only he would accept the Koran as his Bible
I'd be proud to be a muslim, as I would a christian, but if I required literary proof before doing so, I wouldn't feel I was either. We used a muslim prayer at church just recently.
I think I wrote that I wouldn't think it strange to take a spare staff into treeless country. And so to reiterate - what I was saying is that two different gospel writers related two different ideas in language (whether or not the staff was 'extra' like the sandals).
Bang
Bang,
Luke didn't offer the slightest hint or faint suggestion that Jesus had a second walking staff in mind, so the question of why the disciples MIGHT have wished to carry two sticks is irrelevent.The problem at hand is the apparent contradiction between Mark, who said "carry a stick," and Luke, who said carry "no stick."
Mark says that Jesus told his disciples to take a walking stick, but Luke said just the opposite. Neither you, nor Pom, have been able to explain WHY Luke would not say "extra" if that's what he really wanted us to believe.
If you're not sure what my argument is, I'll present it again:
Mark said Jesus told his disciples to carry a staff:
These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff...” (Mark 6:8)
However, Luke tells us that Jesus wanted them to take no staff:
He told them: "Take nothing for the journey--no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. (Luke 9:3)
Bang, do you see anywhere in Luke's words a reference to "extra" staffs? Of course you don't. So, how in the world can you imagine that Luke was really talking about a spare staff? Please answer that question. If you're honest with yourself, and with this forum, you should reply by saying that there's an apparent contradiction which you cannot resolve.
If you DO agree that there's a contradiction, but then claim that this will all be explained to the faithful when they get to heaven to ask Jesus about it, you will missing an opportunity to better understand your Bible.
On the other hand, if you accept that there's a contradiction, and resign yourself to the fact that the Bible is not literally true, then what you will be able to see is an important parable about faith, told by Luke. What's really going on here is that Luke wished for his readers to know that Jesus'disciples were like the traveler in the Twenty-Third Psalm, who went fearlessly through the valley of death without an actual staff: "thou (the Lord) art with me, thy rod and thy staff." The only "staff" Jesus wanted to his disciples to take with them was the Lord. Thus, Matthew and Luke wanted their readers to know that the disciples were to show their faith in the Lord by going on their journeys without any physical protection; the Lord would do all of the protecting.
Do you see how simple, and how important, Luke's teaching is? Mark failed to take the opportunity to present a parable about faith, and Luke remedied the situation.
Now, Bang, if you still don't accept my explanation for the differences in the Mark and Luke stories, you're faced with the need to explain why Jesus would NOT want the disciples to carry a second staff. Please don't come back with the ridiculous suggestion that perhaps Jesus just wanted his disciples to be able to travel all the more quickly and that they could walk faster without that extra stick on their backs. I predict that you will not be able to come up with an "explanation" that is nearly as satisfying as the one I've presented. However, this has never stopped the "die-before-admitting-Bible-error" fundamentalist, if that's what you are; they will, without evident shame, present the most outlandish, far-fetched, "how-it-could-have been" scenarios to try to explain away Bible errors.
What do you say, Bang? Are you willing to concede that Luke's Jesus wanted his disciples to show their faith in the Lord by traveling without any staff whatsoever, but that Mark's Jesus DID allow a staff?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
