Thread 18069217

Why are there 4 gospels?
Also why does no one care that the early parts of genisis with abrham mention the gilgamesh city and other gods?

>>18069217 (OP)
> Why 4 gospels?
It is one story from 4 angles. You get a king, a servant, a man, and a god's eye view. A single testimony is weak, four confirming testimonies is a legal evidence. This was intentional.

> gilgamesh city and other gods?
Genesis is dunking on those myths. Pagan myths have gods who screw up and rape people. Genesis introduces a single, all-powerful God who creates order from chaos by just speaking. It's a theological trvthnvke on the entire polytheistic world.

>>18069217 (OP)
>Why are there 4 gospels?
There are more than 4 gospels https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_gospels The reason these 4 are picked over the others is the arbitrary choice of the ones who canonized the collection based on content they liked.
>Also why does no one care that the early parts of genisis with abrham mention the gilgamesh city and other gods?
Nobody cares about the entire old testament, it's just there to give authenticity to the characters in the new. However it fails at that because the authors of the new testament constantly get things wrong about it showing that the holy spirit had no say in the canonization effort such as for example when "Matthew" mixed up the Zechariahs

>>18069223
>Pagan myths have gods who screw up and rape people
The irony

>>18069231
>>18069231
Luke 1:38 ‘And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.’

Mary clearly consents to this.

>>18069245
That's not consent and it happened after "The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God.". She was possessed into being the underage womb Jesus required to enter creation

>>18069217 (OP)
>why four
one for every cardinal point so the world can be Evangelized better

>>18069217 (OP)
>Why are there 4 gospels?
The Church Fathers said it represented the Cherubim (Lion/Matthew, Ox/Mark, Man/Luke, and John/Eagle). The real reason is that the four gospels were written for four different audiences: Matthew for the Jews, Mark for the Romans, Luke for the Greeks, and John for the Church.

>In Against Hereies, Irenaeus makes the absurd claim that each of the four canonical gospels was stolen by one particular heretical Christian sect. According to Irenaeus, Mark was stolen by the Adoptionists who believed the Spirit “adopted” Jesus at his baptism, Matthew was stolen by the Jewish Ebionites who kept the Torah and rejected his divinity, Luke was stolen by the Stoic Marcionites whose Docetic theology taught that Jesus came down from heaven unborn, and John was stolen by the Plato-loving Valentinians who identified Jesus with the Logos. As it turns out, Mark does portray an Adoptionist theology of Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit first at baptism. Matthew is the sole gospel that makes the Ebionite argument that the Jewish Laws of Moses were still in effect. Luke does portray Jesus as a Docetic phantom who can walk through people. And John is the only gospel to speak of the Logos. So it appears that Irenaeus' Apostolic Church stole and edited the heretical gospels originally written by the four sects he named so that they could lay claim to their traditions. Instead of going the usual route of combining gospels to get a full "historical" picture, Irenaeus instead kept the four gospels apart so that each one could best appeal to the various sects. Each of the four leaders of the heretical sects were likewise “converted” over to the Roman Apostolic Church to maximize the church's maximum advertising potential

>>18069254
>She was possessed into
Not in the story.

>>18069227
>The reason these 4 are picked over the others is the arbitrary choice
It's based on self-evident inspiration actually. This is because in John 8:47, it says, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."

This explanation accords with what scripture says.

>Nobody cares about the entire old testament,
Actually, Paul said that all scripture is given by inspiration of God in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The term "all scripture" here includes the entire Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

>However it fails at that because the authors of the new testament constantly get things wrong about it
Do you have one unequivocal example?
>showing that the holy spirit had no say in the canonization effort such as for example when "Matthew" mixed up the Zechariahs
There are more than two Zechariahs in the Old Testament. Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah is mentioned in Isaiah 8:4 among others. All evidence indicates that Jesus was referring to the Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24 here, since his death is recorded as mentioned there, as well as being the last prophet killed in terms of Biblical order. This is valid if you place 2 Chronicles as the last book of the Old Testament (after the books of the prophets), which traditionally, it was. The point is basically that Abel was the first instance recorded in Genesis 4 at the earliest part of the Old Testament as traditionally ordered, while Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24 is at the latest part. Many people in the Bible went by two different names, including his father (called both Jehoiada and Berechiah in different parts of the Bible).

>>18069340
Yes it is, the spirit that came on her overshadowed her with his power. That's possession and her role as the underage womb was decided for her even before she had a say in it, that's rape

>>18069373
>overshadowed her with his power
Not in the text.

>>18069343
>It's based on self-evident inspiration actually.
That's baseless circular reasoning. John is canon because John says so.
>The term "all scripture" here includes the entire Old Testament as well as the New Testament.
There was no "new testament" when that was written so no that cope won't work. Also imagine using the guy that advocates for the old laws he called essentially defective to be abolished as your evidence.
>Do you have one unequivocal example?
I have plenty more but I don't gish gallop so we will stick to this one. You have to prove that Jehoiada and Berekiah are the same person to get out of this one. It's so bad that Christians have to resort to the scribal error excuse see (pic) the alternative is to claim the latter was an ancestor that wasn't relevant and so your "son of" doesn't become literal anymore

>>18069377
Yes it is, even the KJV translates it as "and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee"

>>18069401
So it wasn't the spirit's power and he did not overshadow her, but foretold that she will be overshadowed?

>>18069254
>it happened after
No it didnt. Luke Chapter 1 is a less than a minute read you retard.

>>18069430
The HS which came on her is the same being as the Most High according to Christians
>>18069431
Yes and it shows that she was chosen for impregnation before she ever had the right to submit to it. When this being came, she was horrified "Mary was greatly troubled at his words"

>>18069441
>The HS which came on her is the same being as the Most High according to Christians
We were discussing whether or not her answer to the angel was coerced. There is no indication in the text that it was. Your quote refers to something that was being foretold.

>>18069443
It was coerced because the command that he will posses her body in order to breed with her was prior to her "accepting"

>>18069448
There was no "command". The angel told her and she accepted. Had she refused, it would not have happened, just like in the OT when Jews demand a king against God's will.

>>18069458
>Had she refused, it would not have happened,
That's just not true, it was told that it WILL happen. She never had a choice in the first place. If you believe otherwise not only are you going against the text but it means you believe the choice of a mere mortal can overpower God who decided that this was the moment mankind needed salvation from his own laws according to your theology

>>18069465
>it was told that it WILL happen
Like many things that God advised and Israelites refused or did not make happen. You don't have a case besides "it would've been more obvious if angel used a question mark".

>>18069471
Nothing in this particular instance implies any choice or possible deviance from this outcome. She is being told that she WILL carry a baby after she mates with the spirit possessing her. You are literally inventing things about the text that is never mentioned. Beside the fact that your proposal is silly (you wouldn't tell your own mother that you WILL make a brother for me?) question marks also don't exist in speech.

>>18069476
>Nothing in this particular instance implies any choice
If you ignore all the other instances in the preceding 50+ books, probably not.

>>18069487
I am not ignoring anything. In fact let's take a look at another account. No choice is given here even to Joseph, the angels coerce him while he sleeps just so he accepts the baby. There is no way you are refusing this unless you want to be haunted and possibly punished

>>18069487
And looking a bit later you can clearly see this was a command in his case. So if he cannot say no to what is supposed to happen how can Mary?

>>18069493
I pointed out in >>18069458 the case you're ignoring. There is no shortage of cases where God declares something and the Hebrews don't make it happen. Not having a king -> having a king. Dwelling in the temple forever -> not dwelling there forever. Etc. Etc. I do tend to be careful, but the fear of being haunted over one of the most un-controversial narrative points of Christianity is low on my priority list, I hope you understand.

>>18069499
>one of the most un-controversial narrative points of Christianity
Of course it wouldn't be given the fact you need her to host the baby that is your salvation. And as mentioned here >>18069498 this was a command and it was decreed to happen. Mary just like Joseph had no choice

>>18069501
The un-controversial point is that she had a choice. That the angel declares it rather than asks her a question might be confusing, but warrants no conclusion seeing the other declarative examples that did not happen.

>>18069507
>That the angel declares it rather than asks her a question might be confusing
It's not confusing if you aren't willing to insert into the text 21st century ideas about consent. From a plain reading you can clearly see what I am saying

>>18069511
You think the idea that she consented comes from the 21st century?
A plain reading of the other examples shows your premise is unwarranted.

>>18069518
No I think the idea you are imposing that her consent had to be taken first before she got mated with is. We can even look at the bible, where it gives rapists access to their underage victims as a "punishment". Funnily enough Jesus is also considered as a curse for us so...

>>18069527
Mary wasnt raped because she didnt have sexual intercourse. Virginity means not having sexual intercourse. For example, a young woman who is artifically inseminated by choice doesnt cease to be a virgin. Virginity is not defined by motherhood.
Your argument is retarded. Please stop. You're embrassing yourself.

>>18069529
>she didnt have sexual intercourse
What does it mean for the spirit to "come" on her then while she is overpowered by it then? And also you need actual sexual reproduction to happen if you want to claim he is the Son and at the same time hold onto the lineage given to him in the bible.

>>18069529
>a young woman who is artifically inseminated by choice doesnt cease to be a virgin
Not sure why you even brought up virginity here. The question is about choice and it seems to me that you don't consider it rape for a young girl to be forcibly inseminated as long as it is artificially done. That's kind of disgusting

>>18069527
>>You think the idea that she consented comes from the 21st century?
>that her consent had to be taken first before she got mated with is
Wait a minute, so you acknowledge that it's a very old idea that she has consented... but in 21st century we added to it by claiming she "had to" consent? Is that what you're narrating?

That a sentence is declarative doesn't mean the listener's consent is overruled. Examples provided.

>>18069538
The text literally shows her consenting in Luke 1:38. You're the one claiming her "yes" doesn't count, so the burden of proof is on you.

"Overshadowed" (episkiasei) means "covered/came upon" like a cloud, it's describing divine presence, not possession or mind control. If she was possessed and couldn't consent, why does the angel wait for her answer?

Declarative prophecies don't eliminate choice. Jonah was told to go to Nineveh and he refused. Israelites were promised the land, they refused to enter. God declared things that didn't happen because people said no. Your argument that "it was declared therefore no choice" contradicts the rest of scripture.

The whole point of Mary's "yes" being significant in Christianity is BECAUSE she could have refused. If there was no choice, there'd be nothing to honor.

>>18069542
What I am saying is what your tradition counted as consent is horrific if applied to anyone alive today. Imagine you had a daughter and an infinitely old being wanted to use her womb so he told her that she WILL let him inside her and that she will be overpowered at the same time as it came on her.
>but in 21st century we added to it by claiming she "had to" consent?
Well it depends if you believe Mary can command Jesus like the Catholics do. If that's the case then her consent would have been required if it was ever asked for in the first place, but it wasn't.

>>18069549
>it's describing divine presence, not possession or mind control
She was fully enveloped by his power so much so that it started physically affecting her body, how in the world is that not possession?
>why does the angel wait for her answer?
It doesn't, there was never a question. You are aware that in common speech it is very usual to have some sort of confirmation that the message has been received right?
>God declared things that didn't happen because people said no.
He doesn't have knowledge of the future?

>>18069550
That would be scary. Luckily the Angel wasn't there to tell her "yo, you'll be weaker than God" lol that's not quite the salient point of how "overshadowed" she was going to be.
> if you believe Mary can command Jesus like the Catholics do
They don't. Obviously your misconceptions run much deeper than what I can rectify in one conversation so let me restrain myself just to stating that it's commendable that you're trying to make sense of the Theotokos, but to make random perverse statements about her and her involvement cannot - in any forseeable world - yield pleasant results. You'll be cursed at worst and delving deeper into misogyny at best.
God bless you.

>>18069555
>Luckily the Angel wasn't there to tell her "yo, you'll be weaker than God" lol that's not quite the salient point of how "overshadowed" she was going to be.
It specifically mentions his power so unless you believe this isn't literally true then I am not sure how else to take it.
>They don't.
I can quote their saints who believed that
>You'll be cursed at worst and delving deeper into misogyny at best.
Is this the orthodox version of enjoy hell?

>>18069560
You're not sure how to take a sentence besides "God is stronger than you"? As in having no new information at all?
>>They don't.
>I can quote their saints who believed that
You can quote saints that believed in intercession, but none that say Christ is being commanded.
>Is this the orthodox version of enjoy hell?
It's the Orthodox version of don't play stupid games.

>>18069554

>She was fully enveloped by his power so much so that it started physically affecting her body

That happens AFTER she consents. Read the sequence: Angel explains (v35), Mary asks how (v34), Angel answers, then Mary says "let it be to me according to your word" (v38), THEN "the angel departed from her." The overshadowing comes after her acceptance, not before.

>there was never a question

"How will this be, since I am a virgin?" , that's literally Mary's question in v34. The angel explains, then waits. If consent didn't matter, why include this entire dialogue? Why not just "and Mary was with child"?

>He doesn't have knowledge of the future?

So God knowing what you'll choose means you didn't choose it? That's just hard determinism. By that logic, nothing anyone does in the Bible is a real choice because God knew what they'd do. That makes the entire concept of sin and obedience meaningless.

Foreknowledge =/= coercion. God knowing Mary would say yes doesn't make her "yes" forced.

>>18069567
>You're not sure how to take a sentence besides "God is stronger than you"? As in having no new information at all?
Beside highlighting how she will be overpowered what else is being said there?
>none that say Christ is being commanded
you sure about that?
>It's the Orthodox version of don't play stupid games
Bro like 80% of the world says the same about you, this isn't going to work

>>18069629
>as it was revealed to St. Bridget
Is this like Catholic Hadith? Is there any collection of them?

>>18069574
>The overshadowing comes after her acceptance, not before
That's not in the text, even before all the verses you quoted she was informed that it WILL happen
>"How will this be, since I am a virgin?" , that's literally Mary's question
That's not the question of consent... She was asking about the process and it was revealed to her that she will be overshadowed and overpowered as he came on her.
>So God knowing what you'll choose means you didn't choose it?
Wut? You said God declared things that will ultimately not happen that shows a lack of insight into the future if you want to take this interpretation. What's more logical is to assume that they were warning of what will happen if they don't obey

>>18069629
There are plenty commentaries about what's being said. The issue at hand is that you're satisfied with an interpretation that renders the Angel's declaration borderline meaningless, since he shares almost no new information. Thos are stupid games. We are weaker than God, duh... that's probably not the salient point.

>>18069730
>since he shares almost no new information.
he does, there's a difference in knowing you are ontologically weaker and the strength actively being used on your body

>>18070092
>God's power = bodily strength
Source?

>>18069396
>You have to prove that Jehoiada and Berekiah are the same person to get out of this one.
The Bible implies they are doesn't it?

>the alternative is to claim the latter was an ancestor that wasn't relevant and so your "son of" doesn't become literal anymore
I don't think this is necessary, but it's worth pointing out that the Bible does actually use the term "son of" to refer to other ancestors at times. See the following:

"And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham."
- Luke 19:8-9

The Bible also refers to father-in-law to son-in-law relationships as "the son of" in some contexts as well. See the following:

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"
- Luke 3:23

Note that Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph. Joseph meanwhile was the son-in-law of Heli, the biological father of Mary. Luke gives Mary's ancestry, which was from David through his son Nathan. According to Matthew 1, Joseph himself was descended through Solomon via a different line.

>There was no "new testament" when that was written
In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes from Luke 10:7 and refers to it as Scripture. Thus, the New Testament is included in the term "Scripture." See also the following:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
(Galatians 1:11-12)

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"
(Ephesians 2:19-20)

>>18069217 (OP)
Each was tailored to a target audience with member berries that only they would notice.

>>18070377
>The Bible implies they are doesn't it?
It doesn't seem that way to me and it also doesn't seem that way to the Christian scholars that admit scribal errors as the only way out without making Matthew ignorant of previous scripture
>but it's worth pointing out that the Bible does actually use the term "son of" to refer to other ancestors at times
I am aware however that poses other problems for you given the fact that you take the Son of God title literally for Jesus but not Adam. And also you would still have to prove lineage anyway so what have you really solved?
>Thus, the New Testament is included in the term "Scripture." See also the following:
What a logical leap! If Hypothetically Luke was accepted by Paul that does NOT make the rest of the NT canon.
>The pastoral epistles are a group of three books of the canonical New Testament: the First Epistle to Timothy (1 Timothy), the Second Epistle to Timothy (2 Timothy), and the Epistle to Titus. They are presented as letters from Paul the Apostle to Timothy and to Titus. However, many scholars believe they were written after Paul's death.
Looks like you can't justify that "he" was quoting Luke

>>18070542
>It doesn't seem that way to me
Well it calls him Jehoiada in one place and then calls the same guy Berechiah in another place. There are examples of this elsewhere, for example the king Uzziah was called Azariah in other passages, but it's still referring to the same person. There are also different people who have the same name in the Bible as well. None of this is a contradiction.
>I am aware however that poses other problems for you given the fact that you take the Son of God title literally for Jesus but not Adam.
Not sure I follow.
>What a logical leap!
You said, 'There was no "new testament" when that was written.' You were proven to be wrong since part of it from Luke is quoted as Scripture by Paul, prior to writing 2 Timothy. So will you back away from that claim that has now definitively been proven false by direct Scripture quotation to the contrary, or not? My claim is perfectly in line with what Paul wrote in 2 Timothy, in that "Scripture" includes not only the Old Testament but also the New Testament. There's a perfect example of that being demonstrated within the context of the Bible.

>Looks like you can't justify that "he" was quoting Luke
Based on what, your quote? That isn't from the Bible, it's from non-Christians claiming that the Bible is false. Is that your a priori premise? If so, it would explain why you've automatically chosen to reject the Bible if that's your premise. The question that arises from this is, have you ever questioned the premise? If not, how are you being intellectually honest? In other words, you're apparently assuming what people who are against Christianity claim as an a priori premise.

>>18070578
>Well it calls him Jehoiada in one place and then calls the same guy Berechiah in another place
That's just an assertion based on zero evidence. Those Christian scholars had to bite the bullet and accept it was a scribal error.
>Not sure I follow
It means you are interpreting scripture arbitrarily. When in one part it says something then it's not literal but in the other then suddenly it's absolute fact.
>You said, 'There was no "new testament" when that was written.
And there wasn't, the New Testament was canonized many hundreds of years later after Paul. Your earliest attestation of any such collection, which is not equivalent to canonization is also extremely late. Also once again Luke is not the entire NT, how is this so hard for you to grasp? This is assuming I am charitable and grant to you that Paul authored that work and that he was actually quoting from Luke and not wherever "Luke" himself was copying from. He says he did it himself in the opening.
>That isn't from the Bible, it's from non-Christians claiming that the Bible is false.
First of all a lot of bible critical scholars are actually Christian. It is a field that emerged from your tradition after all. And secondly why in the world would I just blindly accept your beliefs about your book to be true? Why are your biases allowed but others not? If a priori I believed it was entirely inspired by the Holy Spirit then not even numerical or logical contradictions would matter. This is where you are at right now but you will never afford the same privilege to any other tradition or lack thereof

>>18070634
>And there wasn't, the New Testament was canonized...
I never said anything about canonization. Try actually listening next time.

>First of all a lot of bible critical scholars are actually Christian.
In Timothy and Titus, Paul identifies himself in the first verse. If someone rejects the Bible, that implies they are non-Christian. This remains true even if they say otherwise. Paul warned us about those who would come as wolves in sheep's clothing. See Acts 20:28-32 for instance.

Also in 1 Timothy it again says this:
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."
(1 Timothy 6:3-5)

>If a priori I believed it was entirely inspired by the Holy Spirit then not even numerical or logical contradictions would matter.
Sure they would. I've looked for such contradictions myself and seen what others had to say, but so far nothing has ever been presented that meets the falsification criterion of "contradiction." There are cases where it might look that way, but on closer inspection I've found that none of these claims of contradiction turn out to be a real contradiction.
>Why are your biases allowed but others not?
You allow the basic point that the people you quoted, who are assuming Timothy and Titus are forged, could be biased?

If so, then I agree with that notion, but I think the difference between me and them is that my worldview is completely consistent. IOW, I would argue that it's impossible to have an atheist or materialist worldview that is logically consistent. Their presuppositions always lead to self-contradiction, whereas for Christianity this is never true.

>>18070745
>I never said anything about canonization
I know but that's when what is contained in the NT actually became formalized. And that is important if you want to claim Paul affirmed all scripture within your NT. However I appealed to the earliest attestation there not even any formal process so this criticism of yours of my argument is not even sound. Another thing that I should have highlighted is that even the OT isn't safe from similar arguments
>In Timothy and Titus, Paul identifies himself in the first verse. If someone rejects the Bible, that implies they are non-Christian. This remains true even if they say otherwise
No true Christian bro? Come on... Also that doesn't prove anything, I too can write a letter and claim to be Paul. But if that's your standard then why when it comes to the gospel you don't require the name of the author being present in the text and instead rely on tradition for that?
>Sure they would
If the HS came down right now and said 2+2=5 would you argue with him about how he is wrong? The only reason you don't see them as contradictions is because of all the mental gymnastics involved and I don't mean this in a disrespectful way. Such as what happened in the example I gave, which wasn't technically a logical contradiction btw but Christian theology in particular loves to impose those anyway
>You allow the basic point that the people you quoted, who are assuming Timothy and Titus are forged, could be biased?
Yes of course, there's no human being on earth without bias. Especially those in the historical field who look at miracles being described like the sea being split for Moses and then due to the method they are operating under they are forced to look for naturalistic explanations like the tide or what have you. You yourself do it for other religions and you don't even recognize it. And for the record I do agree with you about their methodology having flaws, it doesn't mean their third party perspective arguments are wrong though

>>18069638


>she was informed that it WILL happen

And then she says "let it be to me according to your word" (v38). If it was going to happen regardless of what she said, why is her response recorded at all? Why not just skip to "and she was with child"? The text includes her acceptance because it matters.

>That's not the question of consent

I didn't say it was. I said it shows she's actively engaging with the situation, asking questions, and then giving her answer. That's the opposite of being possessed or having no agency.

>they were warnings of what will happen if they don't obey

Exactly. So declarations can be conditional on human response. You just made my point. The angel declares what will happen IF she agrees, she agrees, then it happens.

>lack of insight into the future

Or prophecies describe what will happen based on the choices God knows people will make. You're conflating "God knows the future" with "humans have no choice." Those aren't the same thing unless you're arguing for hard determinism, which makes this entire debate pointless because neither of us chose to have it.

>>18070842
>Another thing that I should have highlighted is that even the OT isn't safe from similar arguments
Well, whatever is inspired by God is part of Scripture – just as Paul says. And according to Jesus Christ in John 8:47, the divine inspiration of God's word is self-evident to those who are of God.

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
- John 8:47

>But if that's your standard then why when it comes to the gospel you don't require the name of the author being present in the text and instead rely on tradition for that?
If a book of the Bible claims to be written by someone, that means saying it wasn't written by them is equivalent to saying it is false. If someone wants to argue over who exactly wrote the book of Hebrews (which has no attributed writer), I don't see that as being the same problem. However, for the Gospels and Acts, it makes sense to refer to the writers by the names in the titles since there isn't any reason to think it's anyone else.

>If the HS came down right now and said 2+2=5
Hypothetical scenarios that will never be true are not valid points of inquiry.
>Such as what happened in the example I gave, which wasn't technically a logical contradiction btw but Christian theology in particular loves to impose those anyway
Just show us one. At this point I've seen the same story play out many times with different combinations of scripture passages. There was always a reasonable explanation for each.

We sometimes learn new information from investigating. For example, in Matthew 27:9, we learn that Jeremiah once gave the same prophecy that was later written down by Zechariah. This isn't a contradiction because it says it was "spoken" by Jeremiah, not "written in" Jeremiah (e.g. Mark says certain things are "written" in the prophets in Mark 1:1-2). So we learn new things from the Gospels. Paul the apostle is also the first person to tell us that Saul's reign was 40 years long, etc.

>>18070854
>If it was going to happen regardless of what she said, why is her response recorded at all?
Dude all of this wasn't "recorded", it's the author of the text inserting his opinion about how everyone even his mother was looking forward to Jesus. Was Luke present at the time the angel informed her of the inevitable? Of course not. But let's just say that it was recorded for the sake of argument. If you look at the verse she says she is the Lord's servant, she was informed of the future that she never asked for and then submitted to her fate like a good servant that's all there is to it.
>That's the opposite of being possessed or having no agency.
Does not follow, just because you ask questions about something that will be done to you doesn't mean you consent to it.
>So declarations can be conditional on human response.
When a prophet is sent to warn a city that's expected. Nothing about the text suggests an agreement was necessary in her case. It's a prophecy and that means it will happen.
>You're conflating "God knows the future" with "humans have no choice."
No I am not. If you are making those statements to be declarations of the future then they must happen if God is omniscient. Saying to a city if you don't stop with X I will send my wrath upon you is different than saying Y will happen and you stop at that.

I think you people should leave this to the debate of the learned men and priests in all honesty, we are laymen and shouldn't concern ourselves with the divine. We need to look on to surrogates of the church to guide us, and honestly you guys are kiiiinda engaging in heterodoxy with some of the takes you're coming out with....

>>18070947
>it's the author of the text inserting his opinion

So now we're not even discussing what the text says, we're just dismissing it entirely? If Luke's account doesn't matter because he wasn't there, then you can't use it to argue she was raped either. You can't have it both ways - either the text is our source or it isn't.

>she submitted to her fate like a good servant

"Let it be to me according to your word" is active acceptance, not passive submission to inevitability. If it was inevitable, "let it be" is a meaningless phrase. You don't "let" something happen that's going to happen anyway.

>just because you ask questions about something that will be done to you doesn't mean you consent to it

But saying "yes, let this happen to me" after having it explained does mean consent. That's literally what consent is.

>Nothing about the text suggests an agreement was necessary in her case

Except for the part where the angel explains it, and she explicitly agrees to it. You keep ignoring verse 38.

>If you are making those statements to be declarations of the future then they must happen if God is omniscient

God knowing Mary would say yes =/= Mary being forced to say yes. Prophecy describes what will happen, including the choices people will make. The prophecy is "Mary will consent and conceive" not "Mary will be forced to conceive."

>>18070877
>Well, whatever is inspired by God is part of Scripture – just as Paul says. And according to Jesus Christ in John 8:47, the divine inspiration of God's word is self-evident to those who are of God.
Okay so you don't have any actual criteria other than you will feel it if the text you already approved of without basis says you will feel it. Which is just as arbitrary as I have mentioned in my first post. Furthermore what is inspired is contested by people that all claim they have the HS inside of them so either most people are making bullshit claims about that or the standard doesn't actually work.
>that means saying it wasn't written by them is equivalent to saying it is false
No it's just saying that particular line is false, you can as many Christians do affirm the general truthfulness of a text without being autistic about every single word or line in it. There are many Christians that use biblical translations that omit verses because they are deemed to be late additions, are they now no longer believers?
>Hypothetical scenarios that will never be true are not valid points of inquiry.
Fine I will respect that since your epistemology doesn't allow for it.
>There was always a reasonable explanation for each.
Reasonable is a subjective term. I and many others are not satisfied by what you find convincing. This is why they resort to scribal additions and me to just blatant mistakes from a man that didn't know scripture perfectly. And I will demonstrate to you that even numerical contradictions won't matter as in pic rel.

>>18070982
>I think you people should leave this to the debate of the learned men and priests in all honesty,
See the following:

"Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."
(Revelation 1:5-6)

>and honestly you guys are kiiiinda engaging in heterodoxy with some of the takes you're coming out with....
If you are admitting here you don't know the truth yourself, then by your own admission, you've just admitted you're not really qualified to judge this matter either.

For all you know (and for all I know as well, since you don't seem to be able or willing to explain yourself) you're disagreeing with someone who is right.

>>18071008
>you will feel it if the text you already approved of without basis says you will feel it.
I'm not talking about a feeling, I'm simply referring to what it says in John 8:47 and elsewhere. I am asserting that as true.

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
(John 8:47)

"Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."
(John 18:37b)

This is how the crowds who originally heard Jesus of Nazareth heard His word and became believers, as it says, right then and there. They didn't wait until some council of Pharisees met at a later date.

>There are many Christians that use biblical translations that omit verses because they are deemed to be late additions, are they now no longer believers?
They're not believers in those verses. And if those are inspired, it says a lot about them.
>And I will demonstrate to you that even numerical contradictions won't matter
2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chron. 19:18 together shows that “horsemen” can also be called “footmen.” The horsemen are a subset of the footmen, and are counted among the footmen at the same time. So then, 20k footmen and 7k horsemen represents 20k total soldiers, with 7k mounted. IOW, a horseman can also be a footman, but not the other way around.

This also explains the difference in 2 Samuel 8:4 compared to 1 Chronicles 18:4 as well. A horseman may be counted as a horseman at the start of the battle, but if he is subsequently dismounted he will cease to be a mounted unit. So the difference is explained that of the 7,000 initial horsemen mentioned in 1 Chron. 18:4, 6,300 were dismounted by the end of the battle and only 700 were left that were captured by David in 2 Samuel 8:4. The account of 1 Chronicles takes a broader view by describing the forces as they were that went into the battle, while the account in 2 Samuel tells us the number of the captured forces at the conclusion. Some of the horsemen ceased to be horsemen during the course of the battle.

>>18069279
>The real reason is that the four gospels were written for four different audiences: Matthew for the Jews, Mark for the Romans, Luke for the Greeks, and John for the Church.
That's a great premise. Wish more of your posts were as solid as your Christianity takes.

>>18071005
>You can't have it both ways - either the text is our source or it isn't.
I can make an internal and an external critique at the same time you know? It should be obvious that I was doing both since I accepted him as a source for the sake of argument, I made it explicit. But don't pretend that this means I believe what was said there is "recorded" from an actual event.
>You don't "let" something happen that's going to happen anyway.
Yes you do, you just choose not to fight it because you recognize it is inevitable. Even the story of Adam is an example of man fighting the inevitable.
>That's literally what consent is
No she was given extra details because she was puzzled how can she even have a baby. For it to be consensual it would have been given as a choice, not a statement that it WILL happen and then how. If someone told you that you WILL get hit by a vehicle and then gave you extra information that it will be a bus when you inquired you still haven't consented to being hit by a vehicle
>You keep ignoring verse 38
How? I even explained how what was written there was not an instance of consent.
>The prophecy is "Mary will consent and conceive" not "Mary will be forced to conceive."
No the prophecy was Mary will conceive it's literally what the text says. You're just adding consent because it looks bad to you otherwise.

>>18071038
>I am asserting that as true.
For you to assert it is true you need a reason otherwise it is just a baseless claim, your reason is that it just is true because it says it's true. I found that Christians don't really have a problem with circular reasoning.
>They're not believers in those verses. And if those are inspired, it says a lot about them.
It sure does, it tells me they didn't lock up their mind in a box to keep insisting they are inspired despite them not appearing in the earliest manuscripts
>The account of 1 Chronicles takes a broader view by describing the forces as they were that went into the battle, while the account in 2 Samuel tells us the number of the captured forces at the conclusion.
And your justification for this exercise in mental gymnastics? It's literally nowhere in the text "2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chron. 19:18 together shows that “horsemen” can also be called “footmen.”" Literally where are they called a subset? When you list two groups together then use the word AND you generally mean that they are distinct. I wonder how this excuse will work on verses like these where there is no "subset"

>>18071038
btw I know the cope with the valiant men when you appeal to the KJV, but here's one where that excuse will shoot you in the foot since it depends on manuscripts with known scribal errors

attacks against kjv are all likely attributable to the kikes who push this fraud in its place

>>18071051
>I can make an internal and an external critique at the same time

Then make the internal critique work. Internally, the text presents her explicit agreement. You're arguing "the author made up dialogue where she says yes, but actually meant no." That's not internal critique, that's just rejecting what the text says.

>you just choose not to fight it because you recognize it is inevitable

So she had a choice - fight it or accept it. You just admitted she chose to accept it. That's consent.

>If someone told you that you WILL get hit by a vehicle

Terrible analogy. It's more like "you will receive a million dollars" and you say "yes, let it happen." The angel presents it as something happening TO her benefit (blessed among women, mother of the Messiah), she asks how, gets an explanation, and agrees. That's fundamentally different from being told you'll be harmed.

>No the prophecy was Mary will conceive it's literally what the text says

"You WILL conceive" (v31) --> Mary asks how (v34) --> Angel explains (v35) --> Mary says "let it be" (v38). The prophecy includes her participation. Otherwise why have the conversation at all?

You're essentially arguing: "Any time God tells someone something will happen, they have no choice." That makes every biblical figure a puppet with no agency. At that point you're not critiquing the text, you're just asserting determinism.

>>18071122
>That's not internal critique, that's just rejecting what the text says.
That was the part where I was criticizing it from an external perspective and that's a strawman of it too. I am saying the entire thing is made up because Luke was not an eyewitness to this event, not that she actually meant no and "Luke" recorded it as yes.
>So she had a choice
You know there is such a thing as coercion right? If someone demanded your wallet while pointing a gun at you, are you giving it with your consent? No, and in this case the thief is not literally possessing your body too
>That's fundamentally different from being told you'll be harmed.
Not with the point I am making that extra information about how something is going to happen does not mean you are okay with it happening in the first place.
>The prophecy includes her participation. Otherwise why have the conversation at all?
Already explained it was just news being delivered to her and she acknowledged it. The worst part about all of this is that I can even make the argument that she only consented to the method not her impregnation if you insist there was consent anyway. It's like being told you WILL get hit by a vehicle but given the choice between having your leg or your arm broken and you pick the arm because at least it wouldn't be a life where you couldn't even walk without pain.
>Any time God tells someone something will happen, they have no choice
No absolutely not. I just don't see in what way is this prophecy equivalent to a warning given to a city. For something to be a prophecy it means that it must happen otherwise the one who delivers it is a false prophet.

>>18071101
>It's literally nowhere in the text "2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chron. 19:18 together shows that “horsemen” can also be called “footmen.”"
The two passages are as follows:

"And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there."
(2 Samuel 10:18)

"But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host."
(1 Chronicles 19:18)

As to the number of chariots versus the number of "man which fought in chariots," we see that there were an average of ten men per chariot in that section of the army. As for the 40k horsemen in 2 Samuel, we see them called footmen in 1 Chronicles. This makes sense if we consider "one guy" counts as a footman, whereas "one guy on a horse" counts as both 1x footman AND 1x horseman. This is the apparent way to explain why 2 Samuel calls them horsemen while 1 Chronicles 19:18 calls the same number of warriors as "footmen."

This explains why 7000 horsemen might be reduced to only 700 horsemen by the end of the battle, but the number of footmen could still be the same. If 6300 horsemen were dismounted in the fighting and so no longer count as captured horsemen, they would only count as captured footmen. The other side lost 7000 horsemen while David's side captured 700 horsemen, thus implying the other 6300 horses were killed in the battle.

>Literally where are they called a subset?
It's implied by their interchangeability in the first parallel passage and the fact that it explains what's going on in 2 Samuel 8:4 vs 1 Chronicles 18:4, another parallel passage that talks about horsemen and footmen. A guy on a horse counts as both a horseman and a footman, so he adds +1 to both – as long as he stays on the horse. Thus the number of "footmen" won't increase when horsemen are dismounted.

>>18071115
>btw I know the cope with the valiant men when you appeal to the KJV
I don't know what you mean, anon. But Joab didn't finish the count, like it says in 1 Chronicles 21:6, so what we see in 2 Samuel was only a partial count. In reality, there were the 288,000 regular soldiers (which are described in 1 Chronicles 27) on top of the 800k other men Joab managed to count. So "all they of Israel" would also have to include these 288k on top of the 800k Joab counted, giving a minimum of 1,088,000. This is 12,000 short of 1,100,000.

The remaining 12,000 could easily represent other solders whom Joab never counted (i.e. from the tribes of Benjamin and Levi), but who the writer of Chronicles had reason to believe, possibly by direct inspiration, that were not in Joab's original count. It would be surprising if Chronicles said that Joab stopped counting before he was done, but somehow got a total number that wasn't less than the actual number.

Regarding the subset assigned to Judah in both passages: "The thirty" of 2 Samuel 23:13,24 were probably counted by Joab as a subset of the men of Judah. But they were not included by the writer of Chronicles as members of the tribe of Judah. This is because these "special forces" units mentioned in 2 Samuel 23 were not taken from the actual tribe of Judah (though they were personally commanded by David, and thus part of the Judah contingent) which explains the other numerical difference that exists. Of course, "the thirty" of 2 Samuel 23:24 are still present in both grand totals, since Joab would have been familiar with them, but Joab also counts them as part of Judah's forces because in 2 Samuel we get his (albeit incomplete) count of troops. Meanwhile, Chronicles gives us an accurate breakdown by tribe, so "the thirty" are not counted as Judahites. That is my understanding of what's going on here.

>>18071563
>here's one where that excuse will shoot you in the foot
Not really because several kings of Judah have co-reigns, so their time of co-reign begins sometimes years earlier than the start of their sole reign.

A clear example of this is in comparing 2 Kings 1:17 with 2 Kings 3:1. The second year of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat is also the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat himself. This is because Jehoshaphat promoted his son (named Jehoram) to co-ruler in his seventeenth year. So technically both Jehoshaphat and his son were reigning in the southern kingdom at the same time, and accordingly 2 Kings 1:17 and 2 Kings 3:1 are both true at the same time. Jehoshaphat reigned a total of 25 years (see 1 Kings 22:42), but his health got worse in the later years, leading him to promote his son Jehoram as a co-ruler. Accordingly, Jehoram's reign as a co-ruler started earlier than his reign as a sole ruler, and the Bible could refer to either as the "start" of his reign.

Similarly for your example, Jehoiachin was promoted by his father to be a co-ruler ten years before he became the sole ruler. By comparing Kings and Chronicles, we learn that 1) he became "co-regent" at the age of eight, and 2) his reign as "sole ruler" began at the age of eighteen, but he only lasted three months and ten days as sole ruler before surrendering to the Babylonians. This practice of designating an heir, by proclaiming them king (co-ruler) can be seen with other kings of Israel, especially when they were under threat by foreign armies or in poor health.