I found a big ol' fat lie again in there! (page 4)

sassafrass

Hey, I'm a newbie. Gumby I've always had issues with the bible but I am not coming from the angle that it is full of big ol' lies so much as I doubt the validity of it's content as we read it today or maybe even any other day. First off what man among us was able to verify with such certainty the sources of these writings. Then after interpreting it from so many other languages, especially after certain persons with vested interests in control masses of people through fear via religion through their 2 cents in, how much of the true meaning was left. I know that huevos in Spanish means eggs however if you asked a man in Mexico to sell you some of his huevos he may think you are propositioning him, better use blancitos. Finally it is all subject to interpretation. I mean what a jumbled mess! So much of the bible doesn't make sense to me. I've always wondered why we needed such a thick book to tell us how and why to behave when if we use our enlightened natural human emotions they already make an excellent guide. That and did Adam and Eve have belly buttons and when did we get picky about sleeping with our siblings and cousins etc?

jeanniebeanz

So, when two Bible writers tell contradictory stories, it means that it must really have happened.

I'll have to remember that one for the next time my son tells me one thing and the teacher says something different. Only question I have is which one to pick as closer to the truth, or do I just pick something in the middle?

If the later is the case then the baptism should read as follows:

"Jesus got up from being baptized, and had a latte and croissant before leisurely walking off to the wilderness. Oh, and the pigeon got the leftovers from the croissant."

Jean

a Christian

Gumby is wrong and owes Mark and John an apology for calling one or both of them liars. For there is no conflict at all between the accounts of Mark and John in this matter. Read John chapter 1 verse 19 through chapter 2 verse 2 for yourself. In chapter 1 verses 19-28 we read of John the baptist's encounter with priests and Levites from Jerusalem who came to ask him about his ministry. Then verse 29 tells us what John had to say "the next day." (In other words, on the day after Johns visit with the priests and Levites.) On that day John told people how some time earlier (he does not say exactly how long earlier) he had baptized Jesus. Beginning with verse 35 we are told of events which took place on "the next day." (In other words, on the first day after John had given his testimony concerning his earlier baptism of Christ.) Then in verse 43 we are told of events which took place on "the next day." (In other words, on the second day after John had given his testimony concerning his earlier baptism of Christ.) Finally, in John 2:1, we are told of events which took place "on the third day," after John had given his testimony concerning his earlier baptism of Christ.

amac

I have to agree with a Christian. I am not a firm believer in the bible, but in this case John is speaking of a later time period after the baptism and in vs 32 simply gives testimony that he was present at the baptism and saw the Spirit descend. The rest of the chronology of ch1 and 2 seems to be at a later time period.

Tashawaa

At first I dismissed the John relating it "later" theory. Then I read the account, and almost agreed.

Almost.

What can be used against the "next day" being the next day after John's testimony, is John also describes that on "the next day" Jesus picked his disciples. If John was relating to a "past" event, (the baptism) the apostles would have already been chosen when John was speaking. Mark also speaks of the disciples being chosen (Mark 1: 16-20) AFTER the temptation. John describes the disciples being chosen (John 1:35-45)... some of the disciples of John went after Jesus. Then John, in chapter 2 clarifies that the 3rd day they went to the wedding. Again, this proves the point that it wasn't a past event, but written as "present", because you wouldn't relate the succession of days between past and present.

a Christian

Tashawaa, You wrote: If John was relating to a "past" event, (the baptism) the apostles would have already been chosen when John was speaking. Not if John the baptist spoke the words recorded in John 1:29-36 very shortly after Christ returned from his stay in the wilderness, and just before Christ chose his apostles.

Tashawaa

Not if John the baptist spoke the words

Thats a big IF, and it doesn't explain the succession of days.

Man, thats what I hate about commentary with the bible. If you just read it... it contradicts itself and then you need commentators and "what if" scenarios to try to work out the conflicts. Heaven forbid, its just a book written by man and NOT God.

a Christian, nobody will convince you otherwise. Once I got into it with a JW sympathizer on Christ not being in the tomb dead for 3 days and nights (like Jonah, as prophecied). In the end, when there was no more wiggle room for the guy, he left the debate. Happy knowing (I guess) that his belief and faith in the bible being inerrant was somehow secure.

Sunnygal41

desending on him like a dove

That's a lie! It was not a dove. It was a pigeon!

Yer both right! It was a "rock dove"............i.e. a common, ordinary pigeon..............

a Christian

Tashawaa, You wrote: Not if John the baptist spoke the words recorded in John 1:29-36 very shortly after Christ returned from his stay in the wilderness, and just before Christ chose his apostles. You responded: That's a big IF, and it doesn't explain the succession of days. I don't believe it's a big if at all. I believe the context tells us that is exactly how things happened. And I already explained the succession of days. You wrote: its just a book written by man and NOT God. And, it seems, nobody will convince you otherwise. But since Gumby was bashing the Bible unfairly in this case, I felt compelled to speak up.

Rod P

I am another one of those Newbies.

But hey, you guys are a riot. I laughed so hard I almost peed my pants. (Just joking!)

Now, I don't mean to rain on your parade, but let's at least try to get the story straight, and also try to do so in plain English. A number of you have basically done that already, except it is still a little tricky to follow. I think part of the problem is that we need to set out the verses in Mark and John for all to see, and then try to see what's going on and why the accounts apparently contradict one another.

"A Christian" appears to me to have the best clarification so far, but that's just how it looks to me.

I am, Heavens to Mergatroid, going to quote these two accounts (John and Mark), and then go on to try to make sense of things clearly and logically, being well aware that finding a unanimity of opinion is probably unattainable.

All Quotations are from the Revised Standard Version.

In John 1:19 it says:

And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him "Who are you?"
[In other words, the Pharisees sent the priests and Levites to John to find out who he was. He was going around baptising people, and if John was not Christ or Elija or the prophet, they wanted to know why he was baptising (verse 25). John explained that he was none of these (verses 20, 21)]

John 1:29:

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
[It was "the next day" (i.e. after this meeting with the priests and Levites) that John saw Jesus coming toward him, and so John pointed out to them that this was the one he had been talking about (verse 1:30) with them the day.]

John 1:35,36:

The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples;
and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, "Behold the Lamb of God!"

John 1:37:

The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus.

The account goes on to explain that Jesus turned and saw them following, and asked what they wanted, and they asked him where he was staying. He invited them along, and they stayed with him that day (verses 38, 39). The rest of the chapter goes on to identify the ones who had been following- Andrew and his brother Cephas, who Jesus named Peter. Then he finds Phillip, and tells him to follow Jesus as well. Phillip then finds Nathaniel, and Jesus has discussion with him.

John 2:1:

On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;
Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.

[In summary then, John meets with priests and Levites on a certain day. The next (1st) day after that meeting, Jesus comes out of the Wilderness, and John explains to these guys that here is the Lamb of God. The next (2nd) day after that meeting with the priests and Levites, that John is with a couple of disciples and shows them Jesus as the Lamb of God and they follow. The next (3rd) day from that meeting with the priests and Levites there was the marriage at Cana.

Now, the story in the Book of Mark is an entirely different matter. Mark is telling the account about John the Baptist who was busy baptizing all the people who were coming to him from Judea and Jerusalem (Mark 1:4, 5) John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 1:5:

And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

John was also preaching that someone was coming who was greater than he was, who would baptize them with the Holy Spirit, whereas John had baptized them with water (Mark 1:7,8)

Mark 1:10-13:

And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove;
and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."
The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.
And he was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to him.

The next verse is important:

Mark 1:14:

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God,

So comparing these two accounts of Mark and John, let us try to reconstruct the logical sequence of events:

1) In Mark, Jesus gets baptized by John, has the Holy Spirit descend upon him, and immediately goes into the Wilderness for 40 days..... Now, let's say that 40 days have past.

2) John is out there preaching and talking to the priests and the Levites who are checking him out. This took place at the end of Jesus' 40 days in the wilderness. In fact, it was the very next day, after the meeting with the priests and Levites, that Jesus showed up, whereupon John presents him as the Lamb of God to his disciples (John 1: 35, 36)

Then Mark 1:14 goes on to say:

"Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God."
This would have taken place after the marriage of Cana. After John was arrested, Jesus began his Galilean Ministry, calling Simon Peter, Andrew, James and John to come follow him.

lol

Rod P.

I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!

Share this