posted September 19, 2001 02:29 PM            

First a background, the only real records we have of what Jesus taught is the first four books of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Now, the relative arguement seems to be that Jesus was a great teacher and human, but not God Incarnate. So, what great teachings did this man make? He taught that he is the Son of God, and that if you don't believe in Him, you are going to Hell. So, if he is not the Son of God, is he really a great teacher?

C.S. Lewis probably gave the best arguement for this whole debate, generally refered to as Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. Stated simply, Jesus was either a lunatic that was not the Son of God but thought he was, a liar who knew he wasn't the Son of God but decieved people into thinking he was, or He was the Son of God, and is Lord of all.

Was Jesus a lunatic? Not by any outward signs. He spoke clearly, and effectively. He did not rant and rave.

Was Jesus a liar? Would be a pretty brave, and stupid liar. You might be willing to lie to gain power, but would you continue that lie while people drove nails into your wrists and ankles?

Thus, we are left with one opition from that list. Jesus is Lord.

posted September 19, 2001 02:40 PM            

He was a great teacher in that he taught a radically different view of God, peace, loving natures, etc.

If all he said was "believe in me or go to Hell", the New Testament would have been a hell of alot shorter.

posted September 19, 2001 02:50 PM            

"Jesus didn't want anyone to make a belief out of what he said, he just had a bunch of good ideas."

posted September 19, 2001 02:50 PM            

As for that particular argument, a well-reasoned secular piece on it can be found here.

It's lengthy, so I won't quote it. I recommend the whole article, which dissects McDowell's book quite thoroughly.

The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence"

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

posted September 19, 2001 03:35 PM            

Further than that, I suggest you look into Buddhism, whose concept of Enlightment is entirely individual. Only you can achieve it, no one can help you. Which also predates Christ.

If you want to consider Jesus to be the first Western figure whose still a part of culture today to advocate it, I won't argue too much...even though arguments can be made that that sort of individualism flourished in pagan Europe.

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

posted September 19, 2001 04:06 PM            

Huh? I coulda sworn his whole message was: Love one another as I have loved you.

Not save your own soul, not "i'm the son of God", and definitely not "believe in me, or you will go to hell".

posted September 19, 2001 04:16 PM            

First, claims to be God.
1. When Peter was asked who he thought Jesus was, he answer "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus did not correct him.
2. Jesus refered to himself as the Son of Man, a reference to the book of Daniel that described the Messiah as the Son of Man coming out of the sky.
3. Altough many modern day people argue whether or not Jesus made that claim, non of his comtemoporaries did. He was executed for making that very claim.

I'm pretty sure that Lewis came up with the Lord Liar Lunatic claim, but have nothing with me to back it up. McDowell has certainly used it though.

The central theme of Jesus ministry was to love everyone as he loved you, to try to live without sin, and to save souls.

Jesus certainly did teach that failing to believe in him would condem you to Hell. "I am the way the truth and the life, NO ONE comes to the father except THROUGH ME" -Jesus (emphasis mine)

"But whoever does not believe stands condemed already"

You most certainly can take the stance he was a lunatic or a liar, but if either is true, how can you say he was a great teacher?

If people are interested, I would be willing to launch into a much more indepth investigation/discussion on apolgetics (arguements for the Christian faith)

posted September 19, 2001 04:33 PM            

quote:

---

You most certainly can take the stance he was a lunatic or a liar, but if either is true, how can you say he was a great teacher?

---

posted September 19, 2001 05:10 PM            

quote:

---

That's pretty selfish.

---

quote:

---

Jesus offered morality not as a selfless duty but as a means of everlasting life and salvation for the individual that was moral.

---

quote:

---

And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

---

quote:

---

The Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks were members of civilizations.

---

quote:

---

The theology of the Christian Church had a great deal in common with the Osires and Dioynsus cults.

---

Also, in what sense did Jesus not advocate "Outright supernaturalism," whatever that is? It has always been my understanding of Jesus' ministry that He said we should deny the natural world and seek a deeper understanding of the supernatural. He performed miracles which aligned Him with the supernatural. He said "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to enter the kingdom of heaven." Supernatural? Well, it's not natural - it's beyond natural. Maybe metanatural would work better, because supernatural has connotations of mysticism.... Oh, but Jesus was a prophetic mystic as well...

Also, on being part of a nation:

quote:

---

They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, we know that You speak and teach correctly, and You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. "Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" But He detected their trickery and said to them, "Show Me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?" They said, "Caesar's." And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

---

You can say what you like about Jesus, but don't twist His words to promote SELFISHNESS. That's LYING.

Farwell3d>

quote:

---

He was executed for making that very claim.

---

quote:

---

Luke 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this [fellow] perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.

---

Hey, I believe that Jesus was the Son of God. It says so in the Bible, that He was "God's only begotton Son." He was the culmination of God, God completing Himself and creating the perfect religion. No other religion has at its centre a God who was for a split second an Atheist. ("My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"). But Jesus the Man, the incarnation, was an enigma who refused to explain Himself, who talked in riddles, who was painfully and powerfully right in a way which undermined the principalities and powers of the real world, not this play act we perform from day to day. He came from a world which, when we see it, makes us go insane; He transgressed the incomprehensible to the mundane, but in doing so He refused to cripple the incomprehensible, by making it logical and understandable.

Apologetics explain, but they are not proof. There is unlimited evidence for God in every breath you take, but none of it is incontrovertible. It can be explained by human wisdom, picking the mundane over the incomprehensible, and this is why you will never convince an atheist of the existence of God, or of Jesus' deity, by using apologetics - you cannot rationalise irrationality. Apologetics are only useful for helping Christians who struggle with their faith. For the Atheist, nothing short of a miracle will convince them. Thankfully, we have a God of miracles we can rely on to be obscurely wonderful at just the time we were about to give up hope...

[edited for the forgiveness of sins]

------------------
Ack, bec's geometry homework wants to sell me a Tiny Wireless Camera! - Cropherb, via IRC

Barbies are melting TODAY. - Jesse Dangerously

[This message has been edited by McDuff (edited September 19, 2001).]

posted September 19, 2001 05:36 PM            

(edited to add that I think the whole trilemma thing makes no sense on so many logical levels that it staggers my mind to think that anyone could not see the logical flaws in it.)

posted September 19, 2001 07:41 PM            

quote:

---

Now, I'm a Christian myself, but it seems that an obvious fourth option - indeed, the one I'm most inclined to think corresponds to historical fact - would be that Jesus himself never made any direct claims to his own divinity, and that this particular article of the Christian faith was developed or intuited by his followers.

---

*waves hand*
Yup, that's the one I tend to ascribe to -- largely because I think it makes a lot more sense than thinking that he was a liar or a fool.
And partly because something arguably similar is happening again right now, with the late Lubavitcher Rebbe (may-his-memory-be-a-blessing) and the percentage of his followers who are convinced, despite the fact that he denied it repeatedly during his lifetime, that he was/is the Messiah.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if books about his life, in the next hundred or so years, insist that he claimed to be the Messiah while he was still alive. If this trend continues.

Not to denigrate the religious beliefs of our local Christians -- I love you guys, you know that, but we've already established that we're going to have to disagree on that one rather fundamental point.

------------------
-=> Toon

posted September 19, 2001 08:48 PM            

I stand corrected by McDuff, Jesus was executed for more than one thing. However, the main point remains, that the people around him did say he made the claim that he was God.

"...You, being a man, make youself out to be God" John 10:33, NASB.

However, I didn't start this thread with the intent of proving that Jesus is God, I started it with the intent to argue against the relevant stance on Jesus.

I can see the idea that say "I am the way, the truth, and the life" is a metaphor, but when you add in "no one comes to the father except through me" what exactlly is it a metaphor for? It's a plain statement. Yes, Jesus spoke in many metaphors, but in all that included him, he was without question in charge and all-powerful.

I can't force anyone to drop their beliefs, nor am I trying to. I'm simply trying to understand how anyone can say that Jesus was a great teacher if they don't see him as God.

posted September 19, 2001 11:03 PM            

------------------
“It seems so quasi-tribal. Ugh! This America land! You no come here!” - Roup

posted September 20, 2001 12:50 AM            

quote:

---

I didn't start this thread with the intent of proving that Jesus is God, I started it with the intent to argue against the relevant stance on Jesus.

---

posted September 20, 2001 07:50 AM            

In fact, I can prove via simple logic he isn't:

Christianity proclaims the following as absolute truths:

1. There is only one God.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Jesus was the son of God.
4. Jesus and his father are two different beings.

posted September 20, 2001 08:29 AM            

So in any case... who am I to choose what I believe? I've asked that same question of many neo-pagans who pick and choose across traditions - and I'm not sure if I'm now in the same boat or if it's a coincidence (I'll think about it later) - but the answer's pretty obvious to me right now. I don't choose what I believe - I discover what I believe. I hear things about Jesus or unicorns or whatever and I think "Well that sounds feasible" or "Yeah, I don't think so".

In any case, I don't care if Jesus said what he is said to have said anyway. I LIKE the picture of the fellow that I am presented with. Since I'm not concerned with actually doing what he wanted me to as I don't see him as having any authority over me, I'm satisfied with that. Even if Jesus was a fictional character, I don't care. I like him. I like Dave Lister, Tom Robbins' The Chink, Arthur Dent, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Fezzik the giant, Vash The Stampede, and Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

They're all just abstracts to me. I never hung out with any of them, and I take no orders from any of them. I just... admire them inasmuch as I know them.

It's simple.

posted September 20, 2001 08:40 AM            

quote:

---

Simply put, when the gospels were being circulated originally, there were still people alive that could tell others that Jesus didn't say this or that.

---

posted September 20, 2001 10:14 AM            

You're right. The Trilemma predates McDowell. He's made it popular again, but it didn't originate with him.

Nevertheless, if you want to use it, you really need to answer the objections given in the link I gave. That rebuttal to Evidence is a good and scholarly piece of work.

Second, the Gospels were not contemporary with the time span given for the life of Jesus. They were written between 60 and 120 CE (John being written last).

The following, from the OCRT, is an excellent place to start: Books of the New Testament: The Gospels

quote:

---

The Gospel of Mark:

Author: Many Christian writers of the 2nd century CE identified the author as the
John-Marcus who was mentioned in Acts 12:12. Mark was a helper who went with
Paul and Barnabas on Paul's first missionary journey. Liberal theologians generally
believe that the identity of the author is unknown. 6,7,10,19 Conservatives follow
the church tradition that the author was Mark. 11,12,13,16 Fundamentalists within
the Southern Baptist Convention felt quite strongly about this. When they
obtained control of the denomination, they required their employees to subscribe
to a loyalty oath in which they swore that they believe in Mark's authorship of this
Gospel.

Date: Various sources estimate that this gospel was written sometime from 57 to
75 CE. Conservative theologians tend to estimate a much earlier date than do
liberals:

The Gospel of Matthew:

An early church father, Papias (circa 130 CE), named Matthew as the author of this
gospel. He is identified as a tax collector in a list of the twelve disciples in
Matthew 10:3. He is probably the Levi, son of Alphaeus, referred to in Mark 2:14
and Luke 5:27. Papias also believed that the gospel was originally written in
Hebrew. This belief has little support today.

Conservative Christians generally assert that the gospel was written by the
disciple Matthew, perhaps 45 CE or earlier. The Scofield Bible states that the
traditionally accepted date is 37 CE, to 4 to 7 years after Jesus' execution.
11,12,13,16

Liberals believe that the name of the author is unknown. It was written after
the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 CE, because it describes
the event in Matthew 24. Various authorities date Matthew about 85 CE.
6,7,10,19

The Gospel of Luke:

"Luke" was motivated to write the gospel and its sequel, the book of Acts, because
he felt that previous gospels written by eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry lacked
accuracy. Most of the gospel was copied from Mark and Q; about one third of the
passages came from another source unique to Luke, often called "L". This special
material includes some of the most important passages: the parables of the Good
Samaritan, of the Prodigal Son, and of Lazarus, as well as the story of Martha and
Mary. Luke is also the only synoptic gospel to present Jesus as a savior (Luke 2:11).
The gospel is aimed at an international audience of Greco-Roman readers. Luke is
commonly believed to have been a physician. But recent analysis of his writings
indicates that his knowledge of medicine was no greater than that of a typical
educated person at the time. One interesting feature of the gospel is the use of
duplicate parables: one involving a man and another a woman. This, the emphasis
on Mary in the first two chapters of the gospel, and other internal evidence, has
led one theologian to suggest that the author of Luke was a woman.

Estimates of the date of writing range from the late 50's to the 90's. A date closer
to 90 CE is likely, because the author comments on the destruction of Jerusalem in
70 CE, and because of its dependence on Mark. Most conservative Christians
believe that Luke was a doctor who accompanied Paul on his missionary journeys.
11,12,13,16 Most liberal Christians believe that Luke was an educated person whose
identity is unknown. 6,7,10,19

The purpose of Luke appears to be the promotion of Pauline Christianity among the
Gentiles.

The Gospel of John:

The early church father, Irenaeus, recorded the church tradition that this gospel
was written by John, son of Zebedee. Others claimed that the author was an Elder
John from Ephesus. Still others, attributed it to John, the "beloved disciple."
Throughout most of the history of the church, the Gospel of John was believed to
have been written by Jesus' disciple. Most liberal scholars today believe that it was
written by a group of authors. 6,7,10,19 There is speculation that much of the
gospel was written by a single, unknown writer, and that a second, later individual
reworked the text in order to make it conform to contemporary church teaching.
"John" contains a great deal of anti-Jewish sentiment. It holds the Jews and their
descendants responsible for the execution of Jesus. It has largely responsible for
inspiring Christians to violent anti-Semitic acts in the centuries since it was
written.

Because of its theological principles and the emphasis on Jesus as the Son of God,
it rapidly became the favorite gospel. It has remained the favorite today,
particularly among conservative Christians. It was probably written between 85 and
100 CE, after believers in Jesus were expelled from Jewish synagogues. Chapter 20
appears to be the original ending of the gospel. Chapter 21 describes the
miraculous catch of fish, and the reinstatement of Peter, appears to be a later
addition.

Conservative Christians typically believe that the entire gospel, including the
addition, was made by John, the disciple. 11,12,13,16

Liberal Christians typically believe that it was written by a group of authors,
and that Chapter 21 was added by a later editor of the gospel. 6,7,10,19

---

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

posted September 20, 2001 12:18 PM            

Jesse>

quote:

---

I guess it's actually pretty commonly established that they weren't written by the people they're credited to, that some were written over a hundred years later, and indeed that two of the Gospels are two drafts of one original manuscript.

---

Morat>

quote:

---

Liberals believe that the name of the author is unknown. It was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 CE, because it describes
the event in Matthew 24.

---

With that sort of assumption, why should your source be accepted by those who believe in the Bible?

*braces for the Morat impact*

Meanwhile, there are some other important things on this topic that haven't been mentioned. One of the most significant is John 4:25-26:

quote:

---

The woman said to him: “I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one arrives, he will declare all things to us openly.” Jesus said to her: “I who am speaking to you am he.”

---

As far as anything else goes, I have no problem believing in Jesus, even calling him my King, without believing him to be God. Already in this thread some of the contradictions inherent in the Trinity doctrine have been brought up.

quote:

---

No other religion has at its centre a God who was for a split second an Atheist. ("My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?").
-McDuff

---

quote:

---

1. There is only one God.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Jesus was the son of God.
4. Jesus and his father are two different beings.
Now, if ANY ONE of those were false, it would make logical sense - but as it is, it's the world's only self-contradictory religion.

---

I had a lot more here, but I realized I was tangenting. Sorry.

Oh, and AngelFish:

quote:

---

Matthew 27:3-10 Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing he had been condemned, felt remorse and turned the thirty silver pieces back to the chief priests and older men, saying: “I sinned when I betrayed righteous blood.” They said: “What is that to us? You must see to that!” So he threw the silver pieces into the temple and withdrew, and went off and hanged himself. But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said: “It is not lawful to drop them into the sacred treasury, because they are the price of blood.” After consulting together, they bought with them the potter’s field to bury strangers. Therefore that field has been called “Field of Blood” to this very day. Then what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying: “And they took the thirty silver pieces, the price upon the man that was priced, the one on whom some of the sons of Israel set a price, and they gave them for the potter’s field, according to what Jehovah had commanded me.”

---

quote:

---

Acts 1:16-19:“Men, brothers, it was necessary for the scripture to be fulfilled*, which the holy spirit spoke beforehand by David’s mouth about Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus, because he had been numbered among us and he obtained a share in this ministry. (This very man, therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness, and pitching head foremost he noisily burst in his midst and all his intestines were poured out. It also became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that that field was called in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

---

*Peter means Psalm 41:9 “Also the man at peace with me, in whom I trusted, Who was eating my bread, has magnified [his] heel against me.” A different scripture than that mentioned in Matthew, and both are fulfilled at the same time with the explanation above.

Okay. Done now.

------------------
Lore> I want to go to the Jehovah's Witness paradise, 'cause you get to pet baby pandas.

babybabble

posted September 20, 2001 12:56 PM            

quote:

---

With that sort of assumption, why should your source be accepted by those who believe in the Bible?

---

Check carefully. "Liberal" sources in this context refer to liberal and moderate Christian sects. They do, last I checked, believe in the Bible. The footnotes, which I quoted, mention Matthew being dated to 85 CE by several reliable sources (reproduced below). If you want their exact reasoning, you'll have to go to them. But in the meantime, OCRT has an excellent history of scholarship, respect and good work, so I'm willing to trust their synopsis.

However, from another source (which fills in the meaning of the Temple remark)...

quote:

---

"Matthew apparently considers the Pharisees to be the sole legal authority. This was true only after the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E., a generation after Jesus and long after the composition of Q."

---

But Matthew is, in fact, the hardest to date of the four gospels.
As for John, I suggest you read this. John is considerably different in tone and intent than the other gospels.

Personally, I think the gospels represent the evolution of early Christian theology during the intercine struggles of the first century or so, culminating in the roots of the modern Catholic Church and the Gospel of John. Just my two cents.

quote:

---

6.Burton L. Mack, "Who Wrote the New Testament?", Harper Collins, San
Francisco, (1995)
7.Robert J. Miller, Ed., "The Complete Gospels", Polebridge Press, Sonoma CA,
(1992), P. 249-300.
10.F.V. Filson, "The Literary Relations among the Gospels," essay in C.M.
Laymon: "The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible,"
Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN, (1991)
19."The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible," Abingdon Press,
Nashville, TN, (1991)

---

On a random note: Did anyone notice the similarity between the apologetics for Judas' death (which Red kindly provided) and the scene in "Life of Brian" where Brian falls, is picked up by a spaceship, zooms around, only to finish falling in the exact same spot?

I often wonder if their intent was to poke fun at the standard Christian apologetics for Judas.

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

posted September 20, 2001 01:09 PM            

wait a minute, that wasn't my point anyway. What I was trying to say was:
1) In direct reference to Farwells

quote:

---

Simply put, when the gospels were being circulated originally, there were still people alive that could tell others that Jesus didn't say this or that.

---

and

2) Although it's perfectly possible to square Biblical inconcistancies' (beware...this path leads to Omphalism) doing so sometimes requires you to elaborate on the text beyond what is written. No one says anything about a tree, or a cliff, nowhere is the whole story told. You have to second-guess the scripture, and that's where a whole world of theological troubles start - I'm sure we could all come up with a bunch of reasons why these two stories exist (mine, of course, involves a secret, evil twin )

(and Morat, yes, now I think about it, you're probably right about Brian)

[edited for Brian]

posted September 20, 2001 01:28 PM            

Just one of the stupid things you learn when you go to Christian college.

posted September 20, 2001 01:35 PM            

"Toon, it's okay -- just think of the config.sys file as bizarre post-modern poetry."
-Rob Wynne on #filkhaven

IP: Logged

posted September 20, 2001 02:30 PM            

quote:

---

22:1 My God, my God, why do you reject me? I groan in prayer, but help seems far away.
22:2 My God, I cry out during the day, but you do not answer, and during the night my prayers do not let up.
22:3 You are sovereign; you sit as king over the worshiping community of Israel.
22:4 In you our ancestors trusted; they trusted in you and you rescued them.
22:5 To you they cried out, and they were saved; in you they trusted and they were not disappointed.
22:6 But I feel like a worm, not a man; people insult me and despise me.
22:7 All who see me taunt me; they mock me and shake their heads.
22:8 They say, "Commit yourself to the Lord!
Let the Lord rescue him! Let the Lord deliver him, for he delights in him."
22:9 Yes, you are the one who pulled me from the womb, and made me feel secure on my mother's breasts.
22:10 I have been dependent on you since birth; from the time I came out of my mother's womb you have been my God.
22:11 Do not remain far away from me, for trouble is near and I have no one to help me.
22:12 Many bulls surround me; powerful bulls of Bashan hem me in.
22:13 They get ready to devour me like a roaring lion that rips its prey.
22:14 My strength drains away like water; all my bones are dislocated; my courage is like wax; it melts away inside me.
22:15 The roof of my mouth is as dry as a piece of pottery; my tongue sticks to my gums. You are making me descend into the grave.
22:16 Yes, wild dogs surround me--a gang of evil men crowd around me; like a lion they pin my hands and feet to the ground.
22:17 I can count all my bones; my enemies are gloating over me in triumph.
22:18 They are dividing up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice for my garments.
22:19 But you, O Lord, do not remain far away! You are my source of strength! Hurry and help me!
22:20 Deliver me from the sword!
Save my life from the paws of the wild dogs!
22:21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lion,
and from the horns of the wild oxen! You have answered me!
22:22 I will declare your name to my countrymen! In the middle of the assembly I will praise you!
22:23 You loyal followers of the Lord, praise him! All you descendants of Jacob, worship him! All you descendants of Israel, stand in awe of him!
22:24 For he did not despise or shun the humble condition of the oppressed; he did not ignore him; when he cried out to him, he responded.
22:25 You are the reason I offer praise in the great assembly; I will fulfill my promises before the Lord's loyal followers.
22:26 Let the oppressed eat and be filled! Let those who seek his help praise the Lord! May you experience lasting encouragement!
22:27 Let all the people of the earth acknowledge the Lord and turn to him! Let all the nations worship you!
22:28 For the Lord is king and rules over the nations.
22:29 All of the robust people of the earth will join the celebration and worship; all those who are descending into the grave will bow before him, including those who cannot preserve their lives.
22:30 A whole generation will serve him; they will tell the next generation about the sovereign Lord.
22:31 They will come and tell about his saving deeds; they will tell a future generation what he has accomplished.

---

(There, footnote numbers all cleaned out. Edit? What edit? Hey, look over there!)

To a culture that was almost entirely reliant on oral history, who had all of these things memorized verbatim, the first line of this psalm would have been instantly recognizable, and was thought to be a reminder to the crowd that 1)Jesus was human and suffered just like the rest of us and 2)God is with us, even in that suffering and should be praised. He wasn't exactly in the best position to filibuster at that particular moment, and is thought to have used this line to make a point briefly and strongly. The above emphasis is mine, but it points out the similarities between Christ's position on the cross and the words of the psalmist, and then answers the lamentation.

posted September 20, 2001 02:47 PM            

What's the point in believing something if you're going to doubt every other chapter? Why bother "giving your heart to God" (as one householder put it to me last Saturday) if you can't bring yourself to believe fully in His Word?

(Oh, and the Brian thing is different because that's speculation and this is implication. But you're probably right on their humor.)

Yes, AF, I realize that there seem to be holes, and that what I said doesn't really answer your question. But a tree and a cliff are both implied by the text that we do have; neither is merely inferred by apologists.

In Acts, Luke (let's just assume authorship for now, okay?) was recording Peter's extemporaneous speech while he was making a broader point. In Matthew, the simple facts were being recorded.

It's like when Jesus drove the merchants from the temple. This is in chapter 2 of John, but not until after Jesus' final entrance into Jerusalem in the other Gospels. Contradictory? Not at all. It happened twice! The absence of the event in one gospel doesn't preclude it from being true. All of them have unique content; all of them have corresponding content. Neither of these facts testifies against their authenticity. Believing in the Bible as God's Word and following the commission to teach at the end of Matthew are the primary tasks of a Christian.

------------------
Lore> I want to go to the Jehovah's Witness paradise, 'cause you get to pet baby pandas.

babybabble