(September 12, 2013 at 8:51 pm)Faith No More Wrote: That wasn't really the relevant part to what I was talking about. Why you decided to break that off is beyond me.Because you worded your response in such a way as to be in error of the biblical accounts being discussed.
Quote: I just was pointing out that you claimed that they were relaying the tales differently. I said "different message," which may not have been technically correct, but my intention was that they were telling the message in a different manner. Regardless, your rebuttle wasn't really relevant to the point at hand.Then please restate you objection using technically correct terms, as I have answered your rebuttal as it currently reads. If you still seek a response.
Quote:Here you are simply saying that the discrepancy at hand is proof that the standard of judgement is false. The claim is that the sequence of events do not agree. Your defense is that on of them isn't chronological. The proof you offer of your defense is the very discrepancy in question, which leaves you going in circles. You must demonstrate that one is not intended to be chronological without referencing the discrepancy...The money changers incident is recorded in all 4 gospels. Three of the four place the account at the end of Jesus' Ministry. John places it at the beginning. Which makes John's account not a chronologically correct account. But again who says it has to be.
Your working off the idea that there is a right and wrong way to write a gospel as is Bart. The fact that 3 of 4 record the account at the end of Christ ministry says this happening happens at the end of his ministry. John has it first. No matter the reason it does not make John's account any less factual. It only states that his account is not Chronologically correct. Now if you like Bart says John's account must be in chronological order then the burden of 'proof' rightly and logically shifts to you, to provide evidence that John had to write to that given standard.
Quote:...which you attempt to do here, but simply state that the bible was not compiled in order. The problem is that how the bible was compiled has no bearing on each individual author's intention.Maybe it is better you do not understand my meaning. I was alluding to the fact that the books of the bible did not come with Book Name, Chapter denotations, or verse indexing. These were added much later to aid study. These accounts were written out line one long story or letter. It was up to those who compiled the bible without the aid of BCV to ensure continuity. Meaning if the monk or scribe who was incharge of the book of John pre BCV saw that John's account was indeed out of order, and there was a continuity problem it would have been changed. Again with out any way on indexing or separating one passage from another it was left up to the pastors who were given these letters and books to simply know (oral tradition) what order the story was meant to be relayed. Once the bible was compiled all of that was lost.
Quote:Except it's not as though there is simply a discrepancy in what types of beings were present. They can't even agree on the number of beings, so your argument about labels isn't relevant.Again no. If a average guy sees two beings and is not in the know of what an actual angel is, and one speaks revealing himself as an angel of God then the average joe may simply assume the other guy is an angel as well. When technically only the guy who speaks is the actual 'messenger.' Just like above when you were describing a 'different message' and I corrected you and said they are speaking the same one. You may not have been technically correct, but you point was still made if you can over look the technical descrepency or simply do not know of the technical descrepency.
One Gospel writer may look at two guys being there and because even just one of them held the message of God he assumes the other guys was an angel as well. (He may well have been.) while someone like me may look at the same two guys (They could have been symeese twins joined at the Hip) and because only one spoke while the other did not, I would only have identified one angel. Because only one held the message of God and only one spoke.
Quote:I only like fujis.You know they come from brazil right?
