They Are At It Again!! FFS! make your minds up guys.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 51
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?


Mark 1:10-13  King James Version (KJV)
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

So above then we read that our Lord and savior Jesus was in the wilderness for "40 DAYS" where the Devil is attempting some kind of a deal.

But WAIT!!!! What is this!???


John 1:35 Again the next day after [the baptism]John stood, and two of his disciples;
            36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

No that cannot be right surely? So Jesus wasn't driven to the wilderness by the spirit "immediately for 40 DAYS!!!!
This cannot be right , can it? lets read a bit more from John. WHAAAAAT!!!! On the second day after the baptism Jesus is to be found touring Galilee!!!!!!!

John 1:43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.


This cannot be right either can it? he is supposed to be in the wilderness for forty days straight.

Lets us read a bit further from the same gospel:
 
WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!

John 2:1-11 King James Version (KJV)
2-1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
















Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
So then. Instead of carrying out his heavenly duties in the desert we find that instead our Lord and Savior is actually partying at a wedding and wasting a perfectly good miracle  (his very first by all account) on making sure the wedding guests get enough wine down their necks..


John 2:1-11 King James Version (KJV)
2-1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.


I do admire our Lords priorities. 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
I do too!
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
John 1:35 Again the next day after [the baptism]
You are lying. This is a different book! Jesus had not yet been baptized in John 1. Lol. Caught in a lie again.

The next day in John does not refer to the day mentioned in Mark. Try again Cletus.

John 1:43 The day following...
Following what? Not His baptism 
because Jesus had not yet been baptized in John 1. If you have to lie, how good is your claim?

So then. Instead of carrying out his heavenly duties in the desert we find that instead our Lord and Savior is actually partying at a wedding 
Only if we accept your lie of joining two different books as if the timeline between them is the same.

This kind of lie works with atheists who do not know the texts and are already biased. Which is why you run away from questions too.

So when John says, "the next day" don't lie and say that refers to Mark's day of baptism. It refers to John's day of the scribes questioning John.

Hey Stephen, your pants are on fire.

Lol.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Hey Stephen, your pants are on fire.


Stop being so damn childish and face the facts. This is yet another blinding contradiction  from the scriptures that are believed by many to be "god inspired".

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
You are a liar. You jump to another book where it says "...the next day" and then lie that the next day in John is referring to a day in another book, Mark.

Cite for us the day in John 1 that makes John 2 the next day. You cannot liar.

You even have to lie with brackets, "John 1:35 Again the next day after [the baptism]"

Where is "the day" in John that this day is next to? You can't show it because you are a liar.

John was being questioned, the next day, he sees Jesus and says, "that's the guy I was speaking about whom you don't know"

You are just a petty liar. And it pleases me immensely that you have to lie to claim a contradiction.

You'd better put out your pants liar.

393 days later

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @Stephen

I noticed that you never once addressed your lie.

Will you now admit to lying just as you admitted to cowardance?

Or are you too cowardly to admit to your lie? Lol!
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
LOL @ Stephen, 

look and you will see - whatever you want to see.  LOL@ you. 

There is no baptism of Jesus in John, is there?  In fact - all we have in this gospel of John is John testifying of what his role and of Jesus, the Lamb of God.

1.29 The next day; 1:35, the next day; 1:43; the next day and 2:1 on the third day.  I reckon that 1 + 1+ 1+ 1 = 4.  Not three.  

I cannot figure out why you say the next day - refers to the day after Jesus baptism. 

I think you are dreaming.  Inventing stuff again.   

Why is that ALL atheists are so untruthful?  Yes, Ethang5 - it is because they keep reading things into the text that are not there. 


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
The whole bible thing  is about dreaming and invention....Imagination and interpretation and reinterpretation and so on and so on.

Sitting in an ivory tower and assuming that you know better than Stephen is simply what it is.

And you and Mr E can pat each others backs, and I will pat Stephens, just to level the playing field.

Good stuff.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
But there is a difference. 

Stephen just invents things up - makes them right out of his mind - because he has a motivation which is to prove the bible wrong. 

I don't have an agenda.  I really don't. 


You on the other hand - don't seem so zealous as does Stephen. 

so who knows what you are thinking. 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen just invents things up 

 Lets see all of  your examples of me "making things up" Reverend. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen


And that is just on this one thread. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
This after all is just another classic example of you trying to invent contradictions within the bible. I wonder which book you are copying and pasting from? 

But eh if you makes you feel better at night. 

One would have thought that someone of your age would have learnt by now. But I guess not. 

Do you ever have an original thought? Or do you borrow all of your ideas from others? 

John DOES not record Jesus' baptism.  Did you notice that? 


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

 Nope. those are all contradictory quotes from your own scriptures. 

Must try harder Ethang.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Nope..... The Bible is what it is and nothing more....And as such, is open to a million and one interpretations.

Assuming that you are right, is simply that and nothing more....Yours is but one interpretation.

Stephens interpretations are very literal, though taken from what is essentially a book of Chinese whispers....

Nonetheless, if you are going to make judgements based upon a certain text, then you should stick to that text, and not  profess to know the thoughts of long since, dead men.





Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
It is natural that different accounts would recall different things.

It should act as a clue, that bibliolatry is not the faith. 

If you want to know the faith, the Orthodox Church is the place to look. 

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
It is natural that different accounts would recall different things.

 I agree. But the accounts all have the same theme:  They concern Jesus' immediate whereabouts directly after his baptism. 


Where was Jesus three days after his baptism? follow the arrows and make your mind up. I can only be one of these situations.


Mark 1:10-13  King James Version (KJV)
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

So above then we read that our Lord and savior Jesus was in the wilderness for "40 DAYS" where the Devil is attempting some kind of a deal.

But WAIT!!!! What is this!???


John 1:35 Again the next day after [the baptism]John stood, and two of his disciples;

            36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

No that cannot be right surely? So Jesus wasn't driven to the wilderness by the spirit "immediately for 40 DAYS!!!!
This cannot be right , can it? lets read a bit more from John. WHAAAAAT!!!! On the second day after the baptism Jesus is to be found touring Galilee!!!!!!!

John 1:43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.


This cannot be right either can it? he is supposed to be in the wilderness for forty days straight.

Lets us read a bit further from the same gospel:
 
WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!

John 2:1-11 King James Version (KJV)
2-1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.






Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
It's not as big of a deal as you make it out to be. 

The accounts are from different authors. It is natural that there would be some differences.

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
The accounts are from different authors. It is natural that there would be some differences.

Well now your just being plain fkn ignorant.

You are trying to have me believe that there is no difference between going into the desert to speak with  Satan than there is going to wedding.  While also ignoring the different locations Jesus is said to have been immediately after his baptism. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, I dismiss your objection outright. It is not as important as you think.


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
But there is it again.  You make an assertion that John says Jesus went straight to a wedding after his baptism.  And yet you cannot even show when Jesus was baptized in John. 

Stop making stuff up. The other gospel writers clearly say - he went straight way out to the desert after he was baptizes.  John does not say that - in fact John does not even provide an account of Jesus' baptism, let alone what he does straightway afterwards. 

What it does provide an account about is John the Baptist - seeing Jesus.  And telling others that Jesus is the Lamb of God. And it does not say how many times Jesus went near John. And nor does it tell us what period of time occurred between the baptism and the wedding at Cana.  

The gospels are not inconsistent when you cannot provide such simple events.  You need to show in John when Jesus' baptism ACTUALLY occurred.  Yet you can't and you won't.  You will simply try and rewrite what the gospels - to establish something perverse.  You cannot prove inconsistency here unless you rewrite what the gospels actually say. 


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
There you go...At it again....Interpreting things differently.

And no one is right and no one is wrong......Same old same old.

What would be useful, would be for either GOD or his lad J, to pop down and clarify things.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
LOL at the Zed man.  Are you serious?

This is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of facts as outlined in the passage. Stephen has yet to provide the verses for Jesus' actual baptism in John.  Perhaps you can help him? 

I cannot see it mentioned there. Can you?  
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret


 

Stop making stuff up.

Are those biblical verse wrong then?  That is a yes or no question, Ethang

Keeping in mind that while he was said to have been at those  other TWO!!!! locations, he was supposed to have been in the wilderness for 40 days at the same  time and immediately after his baptism .

10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness".
13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

Mark 1:10-13  King James Version (KJV

Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Who are you talking to? Me or Ethang? 

Ethang can answer for himself. 

We all know what Mark said. That is not the issue. The question is Stephen,  where in John's gospel is Jesus baptized? 

You still have not pointed that out. You make an assertion and AGAIN you come up with nothing.  Pointing us back to Mark where the writer talks about immediately. 

We are in agreement - Jesus went into the desert immediately following his baptism. 

And John's gospel DOES NOT contradict this.  

And you have not shown how it has.  Firstly, you must show us when Jesus was baptized in John's gospel.  This you have not done.  This is the starting fact you must produce. 

Otherwise - just admit that you cut and paste one more paragraph from your text book without actually checking the bible out for itself.  
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
We all know what Mark said. That is not the issue.

That is exactly the issue. One gospel is telling us that he immediately went into the wilderness and stayed for 40 days.  While another say he was wandering around just days after and yet another says he was making sure wedding guests got themselves drunk .

Its your dilemma reverend, not mine. Do your research. 



Stop making stuff up.

Are those biblical verses wrong then?  That is a yes or no question. 








zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen was pointing out the obvious contradictions between different texts.....That is to say the obvious differences in interpretation of the same folklore... Emphasising that the bible is simply a collection of hearsay tales, rather than a conclusive whole.


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
We all know what Mark said. That is not the issue.

That is exactly the issue. One gospel is telling us that he immediately went into the wilderness and stayed for 40 days.  While another say he was wandering around just days after and yet another says he was making sure wedding guests got themselves drunk .

Its your dilemma reverend, not mine. Do your research. 


Well actually Stephen, I have no dilemma. It is you who had inserted stuff into the John passage which is not there. 

Again, let me repeat - Mark states that Jesus went immediately into the desert. John does not tell us when Jesus' baptism was. I notice that you are intentionally dodging my question to you. Where specifically in John does it tell us when Jesus was baptized? Please point out the verse or verses that you are declaring is the baptism of Jesus.  

From the readings of the gospels - it is clear that Jesus went into the desert for 40 days.  




Stop making stuff up.

Are those biblical verses wrong then?  That is a yes or no question. 
The verses you quote from Mark  are not incorrect. Your addition of brackets with the insertion of baptism in John is incorrect. It is not there. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Stephen was pointing out the obvious contradictions between different texts.....That is to say the obvious differences in interpretation of the same folklore... Emphasising that the bible is simply a collection of hearsay tales, rather than a conclusive whole.
Yes, I can see what he is attempting to do.  Yet have you noticed he is refusing to tell us specifically in John when Jesus baptism took place.  And the other thing which you omit to mention is that despite claiming there is different interpretations in the folklore - there is simply no evidence for such different interpretations in the folklore. In fact - Stephen's position here is at odds with all the current folklore - except those who are in the skeptics camp.  

And another thing you fail to produce - even after I asked you to produce it as well - is where in John is Jesus' baptism presented as taking place. 

It is not mentioned in v. 1-18, although v. 15 of chapter 1 refers to John's reference to him.  How soon was these words of John said prior to the wedding or any of the alleged days? the silence from Stephen is telling. 

v. 19 - 28 describes a conversation between John and the religious leaders who had been sent from Jerusalem.   John declares he is not the messiah - but adds that is the voice of one crying in the wilderness.   Now we know from all of the gospels that this message of John the Baptist was something he did for months before Jesus came along and then for months after Jesus was baptized.  How many months was John baptizing for? Many scholars indicate it was probably anywhere from 6 - 9 months.  

V. 29-34 tells us that the next day after this conversation between the religious leaders and John took place that John saw Jesus coming towards him. It is not and cannot be referring to the next day after Jesus was baptized because he had not mentioned the baptism prior to that time. And there is nothing in the context which demands or even asks us to consider this possibility.  Now in the verses 19-28 John does not baptize him then and there - because he testifies that he had already baptised him prior to this time.  The question is how much prior to this time?  

My view based on the obvious omission of a baptism taking place here of Jesus and the fact that v. 15 provides ample evidence that the baptism was prior to this conversation and the testimony of the other gospels that Jesus baptism had taken place at least - 40 days prior to this time.  Perhaps what John is testifying to here in v. 29 is Jesus actually returning from the Desert. The fact is - he went in - he had come out again.  But "next day" here is clearly referring to the day after the conversation between the religious leaders and John. 

In v. 32 - 34 John clearly testifies that he saw the Spirit descending and remaining on Jesus.  But what is also evident from the text is that this is in the past tense.  Past tense indicates it was before this time, not at that time. 

V. 35 - the next day here is used in an interesting way.  The "again" which is attached to it - may refer to events taking place on the same day as in v. 32 -34 if the next day is referring to the conversation between the religious leaders and John or it may be referring to the next day after 32-34 if the author of this book is attempting to be chronological in his story.   

I don't see how either explanation is a problem.  Either take place well after Jesus' baptism - which must have been at least 40 days prior to this time.  We don't know how early in the day - events took place in v. 32-34.  V. 39 indicates that the two disciples stayed with Jesus until or from the 10th Hour.  

v. 43 the next day - after the conversation or after meeting the disciples - v. 40 indicates one of the two disciples was Andrew - Peter's brother. v. 41 tells us that Andrew went to find Simon.  What is not said here is when and where this finding Peter took place.  If we were reading post-Gutenburg books we might assume chronologically.  This is how books are written today.  Pre - Gutenburg - before the printing press - books were written quite differently - and not chronologically as we understand them today in the West. Books were written to be read and re read - and linked from one page and sentence to another - even on their scrolls. My point is we cannot automatically presume or assume that the meeting between Andrew and his brother about the Messiah took place on the same "next day", or in the same location - or that Jesus met Peter prior to going back to Galilee.  The language of the text does not mean that this is impossible - but nor does it make it certain - unless we just want to disregard completely all the philosophies attached to the differences between the post and pre - Gutenburg ways of understanding literature. 

But let us say it does mean that Andrew went and got Peter prior to Jesus going to Galilee - it changes nothing. It only infers that Peter and Andrew like thousands of people in Israel were making a pilgrimage to see John Baptizing in the Jordan river.  Would this have been an impossible situation? Clearly they were looking for the Messiah - so when John the Baptist popped up at the Jordan River - and given the comments we have already ready about from the religious leaders who had been specially instructed and appointed to talk to John the Baptist - there is strong reason to believe that this is plausible.  

v.43 - it tells us that Jesus - the next day decided to go to Galilee.  Does that mean that Jesus went on the next day or that he decided he was going to go - and started planning when he would leave, what he would take, how long he was going for, how long it would take to get there, what would be his agenda etc.  It might mean that he went on that day - or that as the text ACTUALLY says - he decided he would go. 

It goes on and says - that he found Philip. Was this in Galilee that he found Philip or was it at the place he was staying when he decided to leave to go to Galilee. Did he need Philip to help carry stuff or to direct him? Nothing in the vs 43-51 make us must believe that Jesus was in Galilee already or was on his way there.  Yes, Philip was from Bethaida -the hometown of Peter and Andrew.  Nathananiel says a couple of verses later that Jesus was from Nazerath.  No one says that they traveled to Nazarath. Jesus is from Nazarath and Philip was from Bethaida.  Now for me - nothing rests of consequence upon whether Jesus found Philip in Bethaida or in the place he was preparing to go to Galilee.  The context is not trying to give us an up to day account of Jesus' whereabouts - it is talking about the people who were to become Jesus disciples.  That is the point of these passages.  

Chapter 2 begins with on the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee. 

Now what is this third day talking about? Is it the third day of creation? No. Is it the third day since Jesus baptism? No. Is it the third day since the conversation between the religious leaders and John? No.  Was it the third day of the Wedding? Weddings typically went for 7 days in Israel.  This is possible - and plausible - because the wine has started to run out.  Or is it the third day of the week? Again quite plausible and is used in many places in the NT and OT.  

Personally I don't know if it was talking about the wedding or the weekday - I think more likely the third day of the wedding - because it helps us to realise that this wedding is a signficant wedding - and had been going for some time.  Chapter 2: 2 also indicated that JEsus had been invited along with his disciples to this wedding. Now I don't know about you - but wedding invitations typically get sent out a long time before the event. And if these passages of John were meant to be chronological - then Jesus only picked up the disciples in the past couple of days.  To suggest that he would get an invitation along with his disciples in such a short time is nonsense.  My view would be that the wedding was many months after Jesus Baptism - many months - after he had started calling his disciples and there is nothing in this text which indicates otherwise. 



zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
In constantly trying to concentrate on "John",  you are attempting to distract from the real issue.

The contention as you are  well aware is not in "Johns" version of events...But the obvious contradictions between separate versions of events.

Separate contradictory versions that come together to therefore make a flawed whole....A flawed whole that you put so much faith and belief into.


For my part, the flawed whole is simply indicative of, various versions of folktales rendered to a mythical status and purely of historical and social interest.


Stephen for his part is perhaps a tad more zealous, but nonetheless his observations of the literal presentation of the bible are correct.