"In Mark 14:12 the day before Jesus’ crucifixion is the Day of Preparation for the Passover meal which was eaten after dark that night. Jesus’ group ate the Passover that night and Judas went from that Passover meal to betray Jesus. Jesus was arrested late in the night, tried in the morning and led off to be crucified at 9:00 A.M. (Mark 15:25).
John’s event is very different from Mark. Jesus has a last meal but it is not the Passover and Jesus does not institute the Lord’s supper as he does in Mark. Jesus is crucified on the Day of Preparation with the Passover that night after his death (John 18:28 and 19:14). John has Jesus die at 3:00 P.M. when they are sacrificing the Passover lambs in the Temple. Then the lambs are taken home and cooked for the meal that night."
Source
Which gospel tells the truth? Do either of them tell the truth? He couldn't have died both before and after the Passover so logically either one or both have to be wrong. Which one do Christians believe and why? I'd assume no one would answer and just state that "these are just mundane details that don't matter" and brush it off. Well, normally it wouldn't matter. The problem, however, is that many people think that the bible is inerrant and all of it is true. But, that obviously can't be true based on this. Jesus didn't die both before AND after the Passover, so that is CLEARLY an error on one or both of the author's parts. So this simple statement has to show that the bible has errors. Well now the problem comes in as to what other errors are there? Now that we know the accuracy isn't 100%, what exactly is the precision of truth in the bible? How do you find out? How can we know? Now you can go back to Genesis knowing that the bible is very capable of being just flat out wrong in some spots. So now take the creation story of everything being created in 6 days. Which completely and utterly opposes everything we know about the universe at this point. Does that mean the bible is wrong? Not necessarily. But it also should raise a pretty big flag that "hmm, this could be bullshit too". So how should we proceed? With skepticism and questioning of course! The only honest way to approach anything we don't know.
Now we should be on the same level, if you are reading this with an open mind. You should now look at this one conglomeration of ancient texts, knowing that at least one of the books is invalid and the potential for others to also be invalid. Why would you believe in all of the other parts of it implicitly without any resistance or hesitation? If I was reading a scientific journal about some new study, and during peer review someone found a flaw in the underlying data, whether it be invalid experiment parameters, or flawed equipment, or a miscalculation, would I still find that study and the findings valid? No. Of course not. It would make me take a step back and re-evaluate the entire situation. Then I would demand more experiments and digging to be done in order to validate it fully before I put any trust into the claims. This is exactly my approach to the bible. I don't try to tear down anyone's beliefs just because I think it is fun. I don't attempt to subvert religion because I love my sin or whatever. I am simply being honest about what I see. A lot of what is in the bible just simply doesn't make sense, and is irreconcilable with what we know now. Some of it is just blatantly immoral and disgusting as far as humanitarian issues are concerned. Therefore, I don't use it as a moral compass, and since it has blatant logical inconsistencies, I cannot hold it as inerrant nor can I hold it as historically accurate.
If there were to be found historical texts that were from alternate sources from the time of Jesus' death that corroborated the story of Jesus being crucified before the Passover meal, written by literal sources independent of those who wrote the gospels, then you could have a little more cause to state "it seems a little more probable that Jesus was killed before the Passover meal, so Mark seems to have a little more validity", if that source were verified as legitimate. But then that raises whole new problems. Why didn't THAT text make it into the holy bible? Why would the living word of god have invalid text in it? Why wouldn't the correct information be collected into the bible since that is ultimately the most important information that any human being could ever possibly read. It is literally the salvation of people's eternal souls! Why would their be inaccuracies? It just doesn't make sense to follow it without way more validation and historical verification. Unbiased validation and verification. No trying to twist fact to support your claim, but start out completely neutral and use the data to determine the most logical and probable scenario and tentatively hold that position until any new data may be revealed.
So please, I don't mean to be disrespectful. There is no anger in any of this, just confusion and a desire for understanding. True understanding. Just a cut and dry response, just a straight up answer to my questions. No sugar coating and no preaching or flowery words about god's love. There is a true, and there is a false, cut the shit and tell me which is true and which is false. Then tell me how and why you know that. If you cannot give me an answer, how can you possibly espouse it as truth or your belief? Was it just what you were raised to do? You have just heard it so long that it is what you're supposed to say? I can understand that very well, I did it for the vast majority of my life. You feel guilty about questioning anything about your religion. You feel like you're sinning or displeasing god. That's why you'll only lightly scratch the surface of topics like this because if you dig too deep you become very confused and uncomfortable. I'm speaking from very real experience. I spent the better part of the last decade in a mass confusion about all of this. I have written file after file, blog after blog questioning it all and trying to make sense of it all. I simply ask people to do the same. Let the facts lead where they will. I'm not asking anyone to change their beliefs outright. I'm simply asking people to engage in conversation without it turning into me being made out to be this great destroyer of religion. If questioning and needing proof or validation is the great destroyer of religion, it must not be built on too strong of a foundation to begin with. Regardless, I hope to see some good discussion from this and hope that it at least makes somebody go just a little deeper in to the "why" of this topic. Just a simple, "hmm". That's all.
John’s event is very different from Mark. Jesus has a last meal but it is not the Passover and Jesus does not institute the Lord’s supper as he does in Mark. Jesus is crucified on the Day of Preparation with the Passover that night after his death (John 18:28 and 19:14). John has Jesus die at 3:00 P.M. when they are sacrificing the Passover lambs in the Temple. Then the lambs are taken home and cooked for the meal that night."
Source
Which gospel tells the truth? Do either of them tell the truth? He couldn't have died both before and after the Passover so logically either one or both have to be wrong. Which one do Christians believe and why? I'd assume no one would answer and just state that "these are just mundane details that don't matter" and brush it off. Well, normally it wouldn't matter. The problem, however, is that many people think that the bible is inerrant and all of it is true. But, that obviously can't be true based on this. Jesus didn't die both before AND after the Passover, so that is CLEARLY an error on one or both of the author's parts. So this simple statement has to show that the bible has errors. Well now the problem comes in as to what other errors are there? Now that we know the accuracy isn't 100%, what exactly is the precision of truth in the bible? How do you find out? How can we know? Now you can go back to Genesis knowing that the bible is very capable of being just flat out wrong in some spots. So now take the creation story of everything being created in 6 days. Which completely and utterly opposes everything we know about the universe at this point. Does that mean the bible is wrong? Not necessarily. But it also should raise a pretty big flag that "hmm, this could be bullshit too". So how should we proceed? With skepticism and questioning of course! The only honest way to approach anything we don't know.
Now we should be on the same level, if you are reading this with an open mind. You should now look at this one conglomeration of ancient texts, knowing that at least one of the books is invalid and the potential for others to also be invalid. Why would you believe in all of the other parts of it implicitly without any resistance or hesitation? If I was reading a scientific journal about some new study, and during peer review someone found a flaw in the underlying data, whether it be invalid experiment parameters, or flawed equipment, or a miscalculation, would I still find that study and the findings valid? No. Of course not. It would make me take a step back and re-evaluate the entire situation. Then I would demand more experiments and digging to be done in order to validate it fully before I put any trust into the claims. This is exactly my approach to the bible. I don't try to tear down anyone's beliefs just because I think it is fun. I don't attempt to subvert religion because I love my sin or whatever. I am simply being honest about what I see. A lot of what is in the bible just simply doesn't make sense, and is irreconcilable with what we know now. Some of it is just blatantly immoral and disgusting as far as humanitarian issues are concerned. Therefore, I don't use it as a moral compass, and since it has blatant logical inconsistencies, I cannot hold it as inerrant nor can I hold it as historically accurate.
If there were to be found historical texts that were from alternate sources from the time of Jesus' death that corroborated the story of Jesus being crucified before the Passover meal, written by literal sources independent of those who wrote the gospels, then you could have a little more cause to state "it seems a little more probable that Jesus was killed before the Passover meal, so Mark seems to have a little more validity", if that source were verified as legitimate. But then that raises whole new problems. Why didn't THAT text make it into the holy bible? Why would the living word of god have invalid text in it? Why wouldn't the correct information be collected into the bible since that is ultimately the most important information that any human being could ever possibly read. It is literally the salvation of people's eternal souls! Why would their be inaccuracies? It just doesn't make sense to follow it without way more validation and historical verification. Unbiased validation and verification. No trying to twist fact to support your claim, but start out completely neutral and use the data to determine the most logical and probable scenario and tentatively hold that position until any new data may be revealed.
So please, I don't mean to be disrespectful. There is no anger in any of this, just confusion and a desire for understanding. True understanding. Just a cut and dry response, just a straight up answer to my questions. No sugar coating and no preaching or flowery words about god's love. There is a true, and there is a false, cut the shit and tell me which is true and which is false. Then tell me how and why you know that. If you cannot give me an answer, how can you possibly espouse it as truth or your belief? Was it just what you were raised to do? You have just heard it so long that it is what you're supposed to say? I can understand that very well, I did it for the vast majority of my life. You feel guilty about questioning anything about your religion. You feel like you're sinning or displeasing god. That's why you'll only lightly scratch the surface of topics like this because if you dig too deep you become very confused and uncomfortable. I'm speaking from very real experience. I spent the better part of the last decade in a mass confusion about all of this. I have written file after file, blog after blog questioning it all and trying to make sense of it all. I simply ask people to do the same. Let the facts lead where they will. I'm not asking anyone to change their beliefs outright. I'm simply asking people to engage in conversation without it turning into me being made out to be this great destroyer of religion. If questioning and needing proof or validation is the great destroyer of religion, it must not be built on too strong of a foundation to begin with. Regardless, I hope to see some good discussion from this and hope that it at least makes somebody go just a little deeper in to the "why" of this topic. Just a simple, "hmm". That's all.
Comments
Post a Comment