|
Callum
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2007, 08:06:17 AM » |
|
Any other site would call you on crossing threads for flaming. You all have alot trash floating around here, and some pretty negligent garbage men, (cleaning crew?) maybe they're all smoking dope and to stoned to deal with the trolls. Anyway thanks Reasoned Faith and Jesus is my Piolt and Targo, for some solid replies.
Hi Shipwreck. I too am new here and find that some people will talk seriously and sensibly, while others are just self-satisfied slimeballs who enjoy stirring things up. You can usually tell one type from the other: the good guys usually initiate things or try to put a positive case; the others simply go for attack and negativity. And most are a mixture of the two. Twas ever thus in the world.... this forum just reflects how people are all over. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-139
Posts: 1,837
|
|
« Reply #31 on: October 15, 2007, 01:18:52 PM » |
|
Also, later in Mat. he recounts that Jesus drinks wine at the crucifiction after Jesus claims in at the Last Supper that he won't taste wine until he is in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 26:29).... Wasn't it vinegar? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2007, 03:51:58 PM » |
|
In the first case it was literally "fruit of the vine" in the second it was "old wine" surmised by some to be vinegar and often this term was used for vinegar since it was common for Roman Soldiers at that time to drink vinegar mixed with water. Since both were written by Matthew, clearly he differentiated the two by using different terms. It seems he understood there was a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #33 on: October 16, 2007, 07:30:33 PM » |
|
Early manuscripts say "wine with gall", and some scribes changed it to vinegar.
They changed it to make Jesus's "prophesy" come true. After all, it would be strange for them to change it to a more difficult reading.
One really has to wonder how many "prophesies" were handled in this way - especially when Paul had 40 years to spin stories about how Jesus was prophesized in the OT.
As we see from religious people today, they are willing to lie and cheat as long as it helps "the cause". Consider also the rewriting the Vatican did, or the King James version.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
2.DOH
Full Member
Karma: +83/-18
Posts: 171
|
|
« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2007, 07:45:09 PM » |
|
Barney, you know the difference between taste & drink, right? You mentioned Matthew 27:34 There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it. & Matthew 26:29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom. No need to "change it" as most understand the difference. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 16, 2007, 07:58:36 PM by 2.DOH »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2007, 03:22:18 PM » |
|
Good point. regardless of the word choice, there is no contradiction either way and therefore no incentive to change it.
So how does one use the few inconsequential changes that occurred from 220 AD through 1200 AD to project or estimate changes that might have occurred between 45 AD and 115 AD when the Gospels are corroborated as existing as they do in the 220 manuscript? What is the basis to claim they were redacted during this time period by Jews who unlike the Roman Christians had a strong tradition of scripture preservation in unaltered form?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2007, 06:18:55 PM » |
|
RF, this doesn't change the point! There were scribes that changed it to say "vinegar" to help Jesus out. This is the very point that you should be concerned about. There were scribes who changed the other passage to say he didn't drink it. BTW, for other people who aren't familiar with apologetics. You have just witnessed it in fine fashion. For example: John 19:28-29 says Jesus drank vinegar just before he died. 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
19:29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put [it] upon hyssop, and put [it] to his mouth.
19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. Mark says "And they tried to give Him wine mixed with myrrh; but He did not take it." Wine with myrrh, gall, vinegar... drank or didn't.... All diferrent stories, but the important thing for Fundi's is that Jesus is proven wrong - no matter what. taste and drink. Do you know the difference between vinegar, wine, myrrh and gall? And, btw, other translations use vinegar as a fullfillment of Psalms: Psalm 69:21 - they will give Him vinegar to drink -
Matt. 27:34,48; Mark 15:23,36; Luke 23:36; John 19:29 - they gave Jesus vinegar to drink. So, you have good Xian folk telling people that a prophesy is fullfilled based on a change from scribes that you have accepted. So who is telling the truth here boys? How accurate are your "eyewitnesses?" How well do you know that the Bible is the one you should be reading? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 17, 2007, 06:22:45 PM by daedalus 2.0 »
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2007, 06:33:05 PM » |
|
Also, later in Mat. he recounts that Jesus drinks wine at the crucifiction after Jesus claims in at the Last Supper that he won't taste wine until he is in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 26:29).... Wasn't it vinegar? Exactly, there are different accounts. They are all different and manuscripts have been found that are different. See above, and for more, consider the hyslop(sp) that they tried to get Jesus to drink from in John - a clear embellishment to allude to the preparation of sacrificial lambs (it is a reedy plant that they use to splatter blood on people - it is not absorbant and a poor method to let a dying man drink some vinegar.) Why vinegar? Why would you give a dying man vinegar and not wine? (BTW, the words are very close: Greek "ozos" and "oinos" Oh, and here is ANOTHER perspective of apologetics: Yahshua Kept His Promise
As Yahshua was participating in His memorial with His disciples, He said: "Drink you all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matt. 26:27-29). About to die, Yahshua said He would not drink of the "fruit of the vine" until He was with them in the Kingdom. If the Passover cup contained wine, as some allege, then He broke that promise. Why is that? Simply this:
John 19:28-29 reveals that Yahshua's thirst was satisfied when on the tree they gave Him "vinegar" ("oxos" in Greek), which is described as an inferior, common wine drunk by soldiers and laborers. (The Complete Biblical Library) "When Yahshua therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the Spirit" (John 19:30).
Yahshua had refused the wine ("oxos") four times, but just before His death He did receive the wine. Had the previous Passover cup contained wine instead of "fruit of the vine" (grape juice), He would have broken His word not to drink of it again after the Passover and before the Kingdom.
Grape juice had to have been in the Passover cup. Pure, unadulterated "blood of the grape" is the only proper symbol for the pure, saving blood of Yahshua the Messiah in the Passover. http://www.yrm.org/wine_or_grape_juice.htmThey are saying that it was wine, but he drank grape juice during passover. Which is it? And, can you see why we see religion as silly - that people are actually absing their dinner on these interpretations? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-139
Posts: 1,837
|
|
« Reply #38 on: October 20, 2007, 04:37:27 AM » |
|
Why vinegar? Why would you give a dying man vinegar and not wine? You would if you were taunting him, and making his death as miserable as you could. He was offered the vinegar/wine with gall from the Roman soldiers who had nailed Him to the cross and shoved a spear in His chest. People get hung up on words, and that's OK...I understand, because that's what they have to work with. I find concepts, ideas and the message more important than individual words. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
 |
« Reply #39 on: October 21, 2007, 04:26:40 AM » |
|
I agree that ideas are important, but ideas are transmitted through language: words.
plus, the idea or concept I am trying to discuss is that the Bible was:
1. written after the fact, using highly symbolic language
2. was written by superstitious people who seem to have never met Jesus.
3. written by copying other people's accounts
4. written with more and more embellishment.
5. through copying, errors (deliberate or not) were introduced.
6. the earliest copies of the manuscripts are generations old.
7. myth can grow rapidly (note mormonism, scientology, and the MANY early xian cults that sprang up. in fact, some books in the bible are an attempt to stop the rampant mythologizing in the churches Paul had set up: he warns people of false prophets, and "wrong" interpretations or teachings. And then consider the gnostics... etc, etc.
8. And more, but my thumbs can't type fast enough ...
anyhow, ideas are important, but words get us there - and in this case, focusing on the one word and the changes it had HIIGHLIGHTS the idea/concept
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #40 on: October 21, 2007, 08:40:22 AM » |
|
RF, this doesn't change the point! There were scribes that changed it to say "vinegar" to help Jesus out. This is the very point that you should be concerned about. There were scribes who changed the other passage to say he didn't drink it. Let's have a closer look at these scribes, because I think it matters a great deal. So who exactly and when was the the text changed? Was it a redaction or a translation change? Please provide sources since I cannot find any direct verification for these changes. BTW, for other people who aren't familiar with apologetics. You have just witnessed it in fine fashion. For example: John 19:28-29 says Jesus drank vinegar just before he died. 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
19:29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put [it] upon hyssop, and put [it] to his mouth.
19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. Mark says "And they tried to give Him wine mixed with myrrh; but He did not take it." Wine with myrrh, gall, vinegar... drank or didn't.... All diferrent stories, but the important thing for Fundi's is that Jesus is proven wrong - no matter what. taste and drink. Do you know the difference between vinegar, wine, myrrh and gall? And, btw, other translations use vinegar as a fullfillment of Psalms: Psalm 69:21 - they will give Him vinegar to drink -
Matt. 27:34,48; Mark 15:23,36; Luke 23:36; John 19:29 - they gave Jesus vinegar to drink. So, you have good Xian folk telling people that a prophesy is fullfilled based on a change from scribes that you have accepted. So who is telling the truth here boys? How accurate are your "eyewitnesses?" How well do you know that the Bible is the one you should be reading? Please repeat all of this and for the words in question use the language from the original manuscript. Translations into english are often imprecise. One translator will use vinegar, while the other will use wine when the original greek or hebrew meant "old wine". It does no good to confuse the issue by using translations. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #41 on: October 21, 2007, 08:29:49 PM » |
|
When I get the time, or you can, since you seem interested - help me out.
BTW, it does highlight, tho, that xians are willing to intepret and translate the text in any numbers of ways. There are people going to a church right now who are being lied to by their clergy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #42 on: October 22, 2007, 08:14:53 AM » |
|
Wow, those who choose a slightly different translation that does not change the context are now liars?
As to providing help, I am unable to. I have checked the Lexicons and can find none of this inconsistency you alledge. The Lexicons indicate the Hebrew word in Psalms is indeed wine vinegar or soured (strong) wine. The Greek words indicate "sour wine" and vinegar mixed with water as was customary for Roman Soldiers to drink.
I find nothing to indicate the Greek words were changed to these words used to describe the drink often associated with the Roman soldiers.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #43 on: October 24, 2007, 06:06:48 PM » |
|
it isn't "sour wine mixed with vinigar", vinigar IS soured wine.
(French word "vini agre" = "wine sour".
So, it was wine, soured, and probably mixed with water. It was wine. Bad wine, but wine nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
Delta Nine
Full Member
Karma: +21/-125
Posts: 130
The Rapture? I'm not worried. Santa will save me.
|
|
« Reply #44 on: October 24, 2007, 06:51:03 PM » |
|
it isn't "sour wine mixed with vinigar", vinigar IS soured wine.
(French word "vini agre" = "wine sour".
So, it was wine, soured, and probably mixed with water. It was wine. Bad wine, but wine nonetheless.
You argument is interesting and I appreciate you taking the time, but on the other hand I find it quite amusing. You're pretty much doing the equivalent of arguing with people that think StarWars is real. To top things off you're doing the equivalent of arguing that Han Solo couldn't have made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs! If Jesus drank Wine or Vinegar or whatever doesn't matter in the least. The Bible is FICTION. You know this. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
