Posts by peacefulpete

22

Did Jesus meet them in Galilee? Contradiction

by peacefulpete in

library: magazines: the skeptical review: 1992: number one: did they tarry in the city?

if one were to ask a christian versed in the scriptures if the disciples of jesus met him in galilee after his resurrection, the answer would surely be, "yes, they did.

" after all, matthew, writing about postresurrection events, clearly said, "but the eleven disciples went into galilee, unto the mountain where jesus had appointed them.

peacefulpete

chap...Both the gospels and Acts are hotly contested works. And it is only religious necessity that blinds you to the obvious.

22

What have you read that helped you?

by yesidid in

jw
friends

my journey out began with this and other ''eyeopening" internet sites [thank you simon].

i have since read ray franz's two books and greg stafford's "dissertations".

although i am very grateful to have found out that my years of questions had a solid base and i now see the wts for what it is, i have decided i need more positives in my life.

I gag on pop psychology and self help blather. I have found very useful and thought provoking books like, "Living Philosophies:The reflections of Some Eminent Men and Women of our Time." !990 It is a collection of essays about life and meaning and humanity. Excellent and ecclectic. There was a 1930 edition as well that was equally ggod.

16

Advice on books to read up on please

by SpiceItUp in

does anyone have any reading recommendations for bible fallacies/contradictions etc??.

also i just ordered christ conspiracy by a. acharya after reading some wonderful reviews on it.. i was also interested if any of you had any opinions on :.

the encyclopedia of biblical errancy by c. dennis mckinsey .

peacefulpete

A new book entitled, "Secret Origins of the Bible by Tim Callahan is very readable and covers much of the Bible not just a narrow focus. I had the pleasure of meeting and dining with him and while I feel he is not as radical as I think he should be he does do a very good job dissecting the Bible. Millennium Press, 2002....The Skeptic Society has them in stock as Tim is a regular contributer to the magazine.

24

Submitting a DA letter and walking away?

by Jourles in

i have been perusing through the many boe documents i have recently received and noticed something interesting.

regarding ones who disassociate themselves, there have been many discussions on this board where people tell others not write a letter as you are giving away any legal footing you may have against the society.

well, it appears that there are two routes you can take without officially getting da'd, according to the society's own documents.

peacefulpete

Sounds like they called your bluff and won. I was excited for a minute.

22

Did Jesus meet them in Galilee? Contradiction

by peacefulpete in

library: magazines: the skeptical review: 1992: number one: did they tarry in the city?

if one were to ask a christian versed in the scriptures if the disciples of jesus met him in galilee after his resurrection, the answer would surely be, "yes, they did.

" after all, matthew, writing about postresurrection events, clearly said, "but the eleven disciples went into galilee, unto the mountain where jesus had appointed them.

peacefulpete

The simple fact that the Lukan version has an unbroken narrative as occurring the night of resurrection that includes his great commission to preach and his ascension contradicts the Matt. version. As I am sure you are aware that it is merely tradition that attaches names to these books. And modern scholarship has challenged these traditions quite persuasively when not conclusively. So again involving the book of Acts as proof that the writer of Luke knew something is not germane. The point stands that bible comentators have seen a need to place Jesus in Galilee when uttering Luke 24:49 (sometimes 47b-49). Why because they do not see how the phrase "abide in Jeusalem" could have been said before the Mattean Galilee trip without a contradiction. Also the surrounding sentences include the commision to preach to world which matches the conversation of Matt 28, there spoken in Galilee. The immediately following verse then shifts to Jerusalem/Bethany again. The text simply does not allow for this scene change. If we assume you are right and dimiss the views of Bible expositors, and understand that verse 49 was spoken the night of his resurrection in Jerusalem we must then say he was repeating himself in Galilee and the word "abide" means not "remain" but "return to" or "don't go any furthur than 100 road miles or so". This opens more problems, his apostles were yet doubting in Matt at jesus appearance to them in Galilee, which you say came after the account in Luke where we have them demanding proofs of identity (showed hands and feet, ate fish) the night of the resurrection and their faith is made sure. This is not the work of historians. This is legend making. I have offered a possible explanation as to why the two versions differed, that is to incorporate pagan god/man elements that the respective authors felt valuable to elevate their savior to the ranks of the other legendary heros adored by their contemporaries. But whatever you make of that it must be abundabntly obvious that the stories do not "harmonize" nor are they "complimentary". To make them appear so requires some unsupported redefining and artificial scene changing.

24

Submitting a DA letter and walking away?

by Jourles in

i have been perusing through the many boe documents i have recently received and noticed something interesting.

regarding ones who disassociate themselves, there have been many discussions on this board where people tell others not write a letter as you are giving away any legal footing you may have against the society.

well, it appears that there are two routes you can take without officially getting da'd, according to the society's own documents.

peacefulpete

Maverick... Does not the change in vows since 1986 or so that express allegiance to the organization as well as to Jehvah complicate matters? Also does the age of the person baptised(a minor) bear on the ability to affiliate with a corporation? I know some of this has been asked before but this seems a new angle. Also I am assuming that you then have not been DAd but persons have personally decided to avoid you as "bad association". Correct?

22

Did Jesus meet them in Galilee? Contradiction

by peacefulpete in

library: magazines: the skeptical review: 1992: number one: did they tarry in the city?

if one were to ask a christian versed in the scriptures if the disciples of jesus met him in galilee after his resurrection, the answer would surely be, "yes, they did.

" after all, matthew, writing about postresurrection events, clearly said, "but the eleven disciples went into galilee, unto the mountain where jesus had appointed them.

peacefulpete

It is clear that the Luke version does not include any trip to Galilee. It is also clear that the author of Luke knows nothing about a 40 day delay. We are not here discussing the Acts tradition. Furthur, it is not MY interpretation of the phrase ,"abide in Jerusalem" that is question, it is that of nearly all Bible commentators. If you see some creative way to interpret the phrase fine, but WHERE was he when he said it? Jerusalem according to Luke and Galilee according to Matthew. Your arguement that since the story says that after saying this command he then led them to the mount of Olives requires that the phrase not mean "remain in Jerusalem" is interesting but not compelling to me. As clearly if Jesus were himelf leading them to a mountain to ascend at the outskirts of Jerusalem proper it does not follow that they when returning home that evening said to themselves that they were now free to loosely interpret his direction to "abide in Jerusalem" as long as they eventually returned. But ultimately all you are doing is furthur confusing the story, as the issue is about where he was when he said it.

It was imperative to the author of the Lukan verion that the Jesus figure ascend from a mountain. Why? Because this was a standard element of the ancient pagan dying god/man motif that provided the framework for the resurrection story. The author of the Matt version makes nothing of an ascension at all but see as important a trip to Galilee. Why? Perhaps to incorporate the Pythagorean legend of the teacher instructing his doubting students to lower the fish net and catch 153 fish to demostrate new divine powers. Again I will assert that the Luke version of the story does not include or allow for a 40 day delay or any trip to Galilee.

110

The Dixie Chicks

by Stan Conroy in

i don't understand the logic of boycotting the dixie chicks because of the comments the singer made about being ashamed that bush is from texas.

it doesn't make sense to me.

keep in mind that i'm just a canadian, so maybe i'm just not tuned in to the american way of thinking.

peacefulpete

Have you even read the comments here? Do you really know what Sarandon and Tim Robins have said? Man I get so sick of this ignorance of the issues! If people like them don't sound a public alarm you may well loose the freedom of speech you say is precious to you. And how ludicrous to suggest that there is some inappropriatness to a public entertainer to express a political view. I guess that Charlton Heston had better shut up! Anyone has the right to speak about anthing other than 2 things: 1 to call for armed overthrow of the government, and 2 to threaten the presidents life. Neither of these things was done and therefore a tolerant public should hav simply acepted that as an individual's view worthy of acceptance or dismissal. However the real reason for concern in this case is that the reaction was orchestrated by a politically connected media conglomerate that gobbles up radio stations everyday. The average citezen unfortunately simply parrots the views presented to them. Words like "anti-American, Terrorist Lover, Saddam Lover, unpatriotic, coward, communist, etc" epithets thrown at a woman whose comment expressed pride at being an American an a Texan, but disgust in a president. This kind of power to destroy careers and lives and squelch free speech ought not be ignored. The role of large coroporations in shaping public opinion has yet been defined by our society. It is time we start to consider if we want coersion and blackmail by corporate powers determining what we hear in the news and in entertainment industry.

22

Did Jesus meet them in Galilee? Contradiction

by peacefulpete in

library: magazines: the skeptical review: 1992: number one: did they tarry in the city?

if one were to ask a christian versed in the scriptures if the disciples of jesus met him in galilee after his resurrection, the answer would surely be, "yes, they did.

" after all, matthew, writing about postresurrection events, clearly said, "but the eleven disciples went into galilee, unto the mountain where jesus had appointed them.

peacefulpete

thanks for the link Pancho, It is my hope that discussions here will stimulate interest to explore ideas like those at the Infidels site. I don't always appreciate his tone but his arguements are good.

22

Did Jesus meet them in Galilee? Contradiction

by peacefulpete in

library: magazines: the skeptical review: 1992: number one: did they tarry in the city?

if one were to ask a christian versed in the scriptures if the disciples of jesus met him in galilee after his resurrection, the answer would surely be, "yes, they did.

" after all, matthew, writing about postresurrection events, clearly said, "but the eleven disciples went into galilee, unto the mountain where jesus had appointed them.

peacefulpete

Kenneson...thanks for your response. I am sure you meant acts 1:4 not Luke 1:4. Lets turn to Luke 24 where this version of the story is found. Ask yourself ,"where is Jesus during this conversation?". The setting changes from Jerusalem to nearby Emmaus back to Jerusalem. Then verses 47- 49 mess things up. It is indisputably presented as part of a speech that is taking place in Jerusalem the night of his resurection yet the commision to preach is said in Matt to have been given in Galilee. Further the words "abide/remain in Jerusalem until you become clothed with power" can not have been stated in Jerusalem. Why? because Jesus according to Matt tells them to meet him in Galilee 1/2 a country away. Your reference to Acts 1:12 that describes the mount of olives as "a sabbath's day journey away" means no more than 2000 cubits or 2,900 feet, about a half mile. Hardly a comparison, in fact the mount of olives was often even referred to as part of Jerusalem. Therefore to make sense of this verse Bible commentors have agreed this statement must have been made in Galilee and what was meant was not remain in Jerusalem but "return to Jerusalem and stay there". Then verse 50 inexplicably switches back to Jerusalem/Bethany for them to witness his ascension which according to Acts was 40 days later yet here is presented as occuring the same night! The simple facts are that Luke's Gospel knows nothing about any meeting in Galilee and nothing about a 40 day delay in his ascension. Theologians have pressed a very artficial shift in setting where nothing in the text justifies it to "harmonize" the versions of the resurrection stories. Numerous traditions and stories were circulating during the time of the Gospel compilation. Some of these traditions became "cannon" others slipped into the darkness of history. Some alternate traditions were presered in the Gnostic Gospels and other fragments and writings from the late first and early second centuries. The Cannonical gospels themselves dispite years of revision still bear the evidence of a tradition in formulation.