Who strains at a gnat, and swallows a camel.?

[Masterblaster]

Is theology suffocating belief in God.
Is religious doctrine logically effective.
Is religious debate an egoistic indulgence, devoid of purpose?

[Masterblaster]

Hello
I need you to consider this in the context of camel eating done in the first century. Between 1 AD and 100AD, a huge camel was swallowed whole.
On a thread called Jesus Saves! this contribution was made by Jehovas Witness.

JW "To be saved means to be delivered from or escape from danger or death. Biblically Jesus is the means by which faithful humans can be "saved" from a life completely alienated from the True God JEHOVAH and avoid everlasting death. For Christians, Faith in Jesus leads to spiritual liberation now and ultimately (for the majority) everlasting life on a paradise earth in the future - compare John 3:16."

Please consider the twists and turns contained within it.
I am collecting nuanced versions of what has to have originally come from the Jesus message of 1AD.

1. saved" from a life completely alienated from the True God and avoid everlasting death.
2. Faith in Jesus leads to spiritual liberation now and ultimately (for the majority) everlasting life on a paradise earth in the future -
3. Paul's resurrection deal whatever that is from acts
4. The deeds of the deal around the Nicene gathering
5.The Jesus message of 1AD.

Think about this stuff, contribute at will and I will share my own issues with this whole series of events. Apologies for being so long.

[TRANSPONDER]

That is a major camel size and no mistake. It pretty much covers the whole NT claim from Nativity to the epistles. In the context of doctrinal discussion it would assume that it is all true and the various colours and stripes of believer would debate the gnats of the scriptural detail and what it actually means.

But in the question debating it, the Bible skeptic has a case against believing any of it to begin with.

Which must be frustrating for the Bible believer who expects it all to be credited (give or take Genesis) as true before the discussion even starts. The case against gospel credibility is a big one. But then, I cite the biggies. And the biggies are of course contradictions that discredit the claim that the gospels are eyewitness record, or even a reliable record of a witness testimony.

The nativities are demonstrably mutually destructive stories intended to prove a doctrinal point. Both cannot be true, and probably (demonstrably) neither.

The resurrection accounts are just as bad. The women at the tomb is the last thing the four really agree on and they don't even agree on how many there were, whether they saw two angels or none and even why they went there.

The two test cases (I'd say) being made, the rest follow. Luke's miraculous haul of fish, declaration at Nazareth, Antipas involved in the trial and the penitent thief looking very doubtful, and picking up the death of Judas on the way. These biggies, and the ones that might be explained away thus (under 'clean hands' practice) losing credibility and the contradictions that are easily dismissed or just ignored also come under criticism.

It is a big subject, and bigger than is generally known because a wonderfully effective cover up has been perpetrated where the problems with the NT aren't even mentioned, never mind dismissed as 'witness discrepancy' (even claimed as proving they are telling the truth of they'd agree on everything) when such contradiction would surely get them thrown out of court.

It is my mission that serious and severe contradiction be known and understood as a basis for NOT accepting the Gospels (and Acts) as anything to be credited as true events without good reason.

I have said that I don't advocate treating the Bible differently from any other book, and the difference between understood fiction like Tolkien and supposed fact like Caesar's Gallic war should not be a serious subject for debate. But obviously debate about Atlantis (Plato) is still hot. Even more, debate about some of the old historical records we want to try to squeeze reliable history out of but they do look like legend (king Sesostris) or spin (Ramesses version of Kadesh) and in balance, the Bible - originally credited as factual as much as any other Holy Book was not - has come under question as much as Plato on Atlantis or Herodotus about Sesostris, simply because they do not match what scientific research (including history) tells us about Egyptian history, and world geography, which is what is discrediting the Bible.

Geology, Palaeontology and cosmology undermines Genesis and Exodus is now squarely in the sights of skepticism in a way it wasn't even 2 decades ago. And, as I say, the same applies to the NT. The nativities were long since under question and the resurrection accounts were at least debated. But I assert that, like Exodus, they will get their merited discredit as soon as the Experts start asking the right questions, not whether there was one angel or two or whether blood mixed with water signified true death or not.

What is the gnat and what is the camel? What is straining and what is swallowing. In all honesty dismissing question and denying unwelcome evidence is swallowing the camel of Faith and making denialist excuses like I wasn't there to see it' or 'fossils prove nothing' or 'just because Ambulocetus looks like Pakicetus doesn't imply evolution' is finding gnats to strain at,

Ok, that's extreme denialism and ignoring the evolution of the cetan nostril and the particular related ear bones in the various sub -species. The gnat of valid question becomes a negative camel of denial. But I see it as just as denialist to dismiss the evidence that John has never heard of the Transfiguration and Luke has never heard of the women running into Jesus, and none of the synoptics appear to have heard of the raising of Lazarus, nor John of Blind Bar -Timaeus or Luke of the walking on water.

The camel being swallowed is not rejection of the Bible but denial of the very real and valid reasons to question it.

[Tcg]

I need you to consider this in the context of camel eating done in the first century. Between 1 AD and 100AD, a huge camel was swallowed whole.

No camels were swallowed. You've run across an example of hyperbole.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

I need you to consider this in the context of camel eating done in the first century. Between 1 AD and 100AD, a huge camel was swallowed whole.

No camels were swallowed. You've run across an example of hyperbole.


Tcg

Of course. If there had been a Pan Judean camel - eating competition, coinciding with the Festival, I'm sure Josephus would have mentioned it, along with the release of prisoners that Rome would much rather have kept locked up or that business of Pilate mixing the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices, which occurrence seems lost to history.

[Masterblaster]

I need you to consider this in the context of camel eating done in the first century. Between 1 AD and 100AD, a huge camel was swallowed whole.

No camels were swallowed. You've run across an example of hyperbole.


Tcg

That is your opinion but are you prepared to defend it. Can you answer a question.
In the quoted Biblical words of Jesus can you tell us what Jesus thought about God. Please give references for the quotes you feel best display an answer to this clear question

[Tcg]

I need you to consider this in the context of camel eating done in the first century. Between 1 AD and 100AD, a huge camel was swallowed whole.

No camels were swallowed. You've run across an example of hyperbole.


Tcg

That is your opinion but are you prepared to defend it. Can you answer a question.
In the quoted Biblical words of Jesus can you tell us what Jesus thought about God. Please give references for the quotes you feel best display an answer to this clear question

If you re-read my reply, you'll see I mentioned camels and hyperbole. What Jesus thought about God is irrelevant to my point. I can't imagine why you'd ask about it in this context. The correct answer is hyperbole. No whole camels were swallowed.


Tcg

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER.
You are a top contributor to this forum and my wish is that your efforts reap rewards for people who consider them.Your swashbuckling revelations are almost virtual in my thoughts.
I went to see 20 beautiful horses on a farm last week. I had my Sunday shoes on, much to the amusement of the farmer. It did not faze me in any way as I tip-toed down the field.. I was born in these rural situations. I didn't mind the 'muck' , and the horses did not disappoint. Do not talk to me about inconsistencies in Nativity accounts. That's muck, I avoid it. I do not do angels. The only people that might engage with much of your content are literalist believers who will argue you down regardless. Why have you afforded my ideas the latitude that you have.

[Masterblaster]

I need you to consider this in the context of camel eating done in the first century. Between 1 AD and 100AD, a huge camel was swallowed whole.

No camels were swallowed. You've run across an example of hyperbole.


Tcg

That is your opinion but are you prepared to defend it. Can you answer a question.
In the quoted Biblical words of Jesus can you tell us what Jesus thought about God. Please give references for the quotes you feel best display an answer to this clear question

If you re-read my reply, you'll see I mentioned camels and hyperbole. What Jesus thought about God is irrelevant to my point. I can't imagine why you'd ask about it in this context. The correct answer is hyperbole. No whole camels were swallowed.


Tcg

Hello Tcg
Matthew 23. 24 "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."
This is presented as a Jesus statement.Most people know what hyperbole is, including the original audience in the Temple. Unless I include your basic reference to the obvious you have no point.That is why I offered you the challenge to contribute something insightful to the discussion. I want to know your learned opinion on this matter. I want to ring fence components of the original Jesus message.

[Tcg]

I need you to consider this in the context of camel eating done in the first century. Between 1 AD and 100AD, a huge camel was swallowed whole.

No camels were swallowed. You've run across an example of hyperbole.


Tcg

That is your opinion but are you prepared to defend it. Can you answer a question.
In the quoted Biblical words of Jesus can you tell us what Jesus thought about God. Please give references for the quotes you feel best display an answer to this clear question

If you re-read my reply, you'll see I mentioned camels and hyperbole. What Jesus thought about God is irrelevant to my point. I can't imagine why you'd ask about it in this context. The correct answer is hyperbole. No whole camels were swallowed.


Tcg

Hello Tcg
Matthew 23. 24 "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."
This is presented as a Jesus statement.Most people know what hyperbole is, including the original audience in the Temple. Unless I include your basic reference to the obvious you have no point.That is why I offered you the challenge to contribute something insightful to the discussion. I want to know your learned opinion on this matter. I want to ring fence components of the original Jesus message.

Great, so we agree no whole camels were swallowed. Yes, it is obvious which causes one to wonder why you created this thread when there is no mystery to discuss. Case closed, although there was truly no case to open.



Tcg

[Masterblaster]

I need you to consider this in the context of camel eating done in the first century. Between 1 AD and 100AD, a huge camel was swallowed whole.

No camels were swallowed. You've run across an example of hyperbole.


Tcg

That is your opinion but are you prepared to defend it. Can you answer a question.
In the quoted Biblical words of Jesus can you tell us what Jesus thought about God. Please give references for the quotes you feel best display an answer to this clear question

If you re-read my reply, you'll see I mentioned camels and hyperbole. What Jesus thought about God is irrelevant to my point. I can't imagine why you'd ask about it in this context. The correct answer is hyperbole. No whole camels were swallowed.


Tcg

Hello Tcg
Matthew 23. 24 "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."
This is presented as a Jesus statement.Most people know what hyperbole is, including the original audience in the Temple. Unless I include your basic reference to the obvious you have no point.That is why I offered you the challenge to contribute something insightful to the discussion. I want to know your learned opinion on this matter. I want to ring fence components of the original Jesus message.

Great, so we agree no whole camels were swallowed. Yes, it is obvious which causes one to wonder why you created this thread when there is no mystery to discuss. Case closed, although there was truly no case to open.



Tcg

At least we have all had an example of hyperbole highlighted for us. I guess that is why 'savants' sit at the top table.