OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[lvbuckeye]

Sometimes I am Jewish. I say that, and don't mean to offend "actual" jews... but, I've referred to myself as Jewish before.

what you refer to yourself as and what you ARE are not exactly the same...

Jonathan Edwards can suck my dick. He's half the reason.... well... maybe 3/4 of the reason I think a lot of Christians are completely fucked in the head.

who is talking about Jonathan Edwards? i'm pretty sure that i didn't reference him.

Wickedness.... I'm calling bullshit. More importantly however, how great is this god of yours that creates man to be inherently not good/wicked?

sorry, once again, you are demonstrating your ignorance of the Scripture (i don't mean to knock you, dude, but the more i read what you say, the more evident it becomes that you have not read the Bible for yourself.)
man was NOT created with inherent sin/evil/not good. man was created PERFECT. imperfection was introduced when Adam deemed that it was okay to disobey the commands of God. man created with free will. we are all free to chose right or wrong. inevitably, at some point or other, we choose wrong. we are all sinners because our fathers are sinners.

Probably. Well... not sure about my buddies, but David Koresh managed to dig up some nutbags willing to die for his bullshit, so I imagine I could find some equally fucked up people.

riiiiiiight.

If I had plans of committing such a fraud, I'd be extremely well versed in the details of what I'd have to SAY I did (regardless of whether I did it or not.. and 2,000 years later, if my story had been continued, you'd believe it just the same)... leading me to:

you have no idea what you're talking about. seriously, stop thinking that what you were taught as a child somehow equates to actually digging in and reading and meditating and learning it for yourself. your whole argument is based on what you were TOLD that the Scripture says, forget what you were taught. the material is there. learn it for yourself.

Big fucking deal. If I told you I was born of a virgin, who are YOU to say I'm lying?

nice of you to ignore the other 40 prophecies that i listed...

Some things that fit my life are in bold in your quoted post above.... I could fake the rest, and hell... since i haven't died yet, it's hard for me to say much about who I'll be buried with or if I'll rise from the dead. But, I'm pretty sure I could do those things... or at least pay someone enough to SAY I did those things....

LMFAO. you don't believe in Adam. you believe in a First Cause, by your own posts. you believe in evolution, by your own posts. Adam is not congruent with Darwinism. tribe of Judah? are you aware of how meticulous the Israelites are in keeping their records? (i can trace my father's mother's line all the way back to Joseph of Arithemathea {sp} heir to the throne of David? if you can't trace your roots back to King David, you have absolutely NO claim to this title.

30 pieces of silver: there is no modern equivilant. the OT prophesy states '30 pieces of silver,' the NT account says '30 pieces of silver.' '30 pieces of silver is 30 pieces of silver. the relative value doesn't matter.

Point is, I could make all this stuff up and get a number of strung out hippies to consider me Christ and go about telling folks how great I am.

absolutely incorrect. you can't make this stuff up. you either fit the bill or you don't. calling a duck a fish doesn't make the duck a fish.

The only thing that makes me less impressive than say the Pope, on matters religion, is FAR less people believe what I have to say. That's not an issue of truth, however, that's an issue of power and/or tradition (at this point in time).

and now here you go invoking the pope, for whatever reason... i thought you rejected that man? no one is talking about what a MAN says you need to do. we're talking about a personal relationship with God...

 

[Ttown]

Sometimes I am Jewish. I

So does this mean that you are are "sometimes" circumsized??

 

[Bleed S & G]

Alight, so is Hitler in hell? my vote is no.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Where are these detailed records you speak of (as if you were there having a look at them with your own eyes). I suppose they were just thrown away once Matty went thru the trouble of figuring out where Jesus comes from. Care to explain how these "detailed records" used provided Luke with a different genealogy than Matthew.
Likewise, if God is Jesus' father, then why do we trace Jesus' bloodline through JOSEPH and not Mary? 'Splain me that, oh ye of the infinite understanding. If Joseph's bloodline is to David, seems to me that Jesus is more properly the "Step-Son-of-Man"
Here is a nice link of differences between Luke and Matt. I suppose we have to CHOOSE to believe one or the other bloodline... failing the existence of these detailed records Scott speaks of which apparently weren't detailed enough to establish even who Jesus' Grandfather was. ("Heli" in Luke 3:23 or "Jacob" in Matt. 3:16)
You guys crack me up.

Let me get this straight you're referencing an anonymous guy on the internet while often making fun of other's sources for not having credentials. Their are plenty of guys who have studied the Bible and aren't anonymous who come up with more authoritative work than this guy. Its safe to say I believe that I am more persuaded by the guys that say the passage in Luke deals with Mary's lineage as opposed to Joseph's. His argument that Mary's kinship to Elizabeth makes Mary a Levite and not of the tribe a Judah is easily more of a stretch than Heli is Mary's father. He also manages to talk about generations between Abraham and David, David and the exile, and exile and Jesus and how the number of generations between the exile and Jesus only add up to 13(not 14 as in scripture).

After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.[b]

including Jesus that is 14 everytime I count it.

Furthermore whats amazing is that Jesus had to be a decendant of David right? Jesus's lineage would have been an easy way for someone to discredit Him being the Messiah had they been able to prove he wasn't of David's decent. People of that day were anxious to reject Jesus, but noone during that time managed to discredit Jesus's lineage. Now his attempt to do so 2000 years later screams of someone who just doesn't want it to be true.

BKB, you also seem to pick at only parts of the argument without thinking things through. Of course I don't have Jesus's family tree(other than the Bible) records here. And its safe to say that they haven't survived the 2000 years. However we do know as I stated previously that because of how the land was divied up and establishing priesthood among the Jews that their genealogies were very important and were kept meticulously. The people of that time would have been able to prove or disprove Jesus's lineage fairly easily. Nobody in the first century even mounted an attack on His lineage even thought it would have been fairly easy had His lineage been a lie and the grave consequences it would have had to his claim to be the Messiah.

What you clearly dont understand is that my family has also kept detailed family records. And you assume I can't prove my lineage. You see, the BKB family tree is important because I'm the fucking King of Man. In all seriousness, you cannot prove I am not a descendant of David. You choose to believe I am lying. Nothing more, nothing less. Fortunately for me, the task of outlining my family tree here in cyberspace is something I can decline to do, and do so decline.

Once again... I claim I am descendant of David.

Once again prove now from both your mother and Father's side descendancy from David.

You may either choose to accept that I am telling the truth and the consequences of my bloodline, or you may choose to call me a liar. But, in either case, you have done nothing more than accept or reject a tale.... and that's all you're doing with Christianity and the Bible as well.

So, I guess I'm a little confused. The recent topic of conversation wasn't why we believe a certain tale(Christ's resurrection) happened and your counter claim that you could fake that just as easliy? And we're talking about the merits of those claims, right?
Would you agree that there are certain consequences to Christ's resurrection being true?

 

[Stephen Colbert]

a better question is which of the numerous specific prophecies would he be able to fake?

seed of a woman?
virgin birth?
preceded by a forerunner?
birth in Bethlehem?
descendant of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David?
from the Tribe of Judah?
heir to the throne of David?
time of birth?
slaughter of children?
flight to Egypt?
triumphant entry on a donkey?
entry through the Golden Gate?
betrayal by a friend for 30 pieces of silver?
money returned and given to the potter's field?
Judas' position replaced?
soldiers gambling for his clothing?
executed with real criminals?
pierced hands and feet?
agonized in thirst?
given gall and vinegar?
no bones broken?
side pierced?
forsaken by God?
buried with rich?
abandoned by followers?
time of death?
resurrection?
others resurrected?

all of those things were prophesied in the Old Testament. all fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

were they even prophecies? i've read some religious scholars that say that what people think of as OT prophecies were actually written as social commentaries for the people of their own times. even if they were prophecies some of them have problems. for instance:

virgin birth: i've heard that "virgin" as it was used in the original Hebrew was actually a word for young woman, and didn't actually have the meaning of a virgin.

pierced hands and feet: this comes from psalm 22:16, but also is probably a mistranslation if you look at some version of the bible they contain a footnote that says the translation in Hebrew is often "like a lion they are at my hands and feet" not "they pierced my hands and feet"

born in bethlehem: i think it's interesting that in mark it's never mentioned that he was born here, but instead implies that he was from nazareth. seems like later christians might have wanted more details on jesus's birth, and that's where the later gospels came in to fill in the gaps.

given gall and vinegar: mark 15:23 "And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it."

matthew 27:34 "they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not drink it."

so matthew is right and mark is wrong?

similar problems might exist for other prohpecies but those are the ones that i remembered.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

what you refer to yourself as and what you ARE are not exactly the same...

Yeah, I suppose. Was kind of a joke, although I do like to consider myself every religion and that's not a joke.

who is talking about Jonathan Edwards? i'm pretty sure that i didn't reference him.

You're the one who said man can't be trusted because they are inherently wicked. That sounded like Edwards to me.

sorry, once again, you are demonstrating your ignorance of the Scripture (i don't mean to knock you, dude, but the more i read what you say, the more evident it becomes that you have not read the Bible for yourself.)
man was NOT created with inherent sin/evil/not good. man was created PERFECT. imperfection was introduced when Adam deemed that it was okay to disobey the commands of God. man created with free will. we are all free to chose right or wrong. inevitably, at some point or other, we choose wrong. we are all sinners because our fathers are sinners.

Sorry, dude, but once again you don't seem to realize I'm not even attempting to address scripture, but instead take on the WORDS OF YOUR POST not argue via scripture. Which is something I don't normally do (use scripture to bolster any of my arguments... owing in no small part to the fact that I don't buy scripture - as I explained to BuckeyeScott. So, assume what you want about my reading the bible or not. I'm not here to argue what it says, I'm here to argue with what YOU say (And I don't mean JUST you specifically). Like I said above, the YOU said people are inherently wicked.... I never said the Bible said so.

riiiiiiight.

Sorry that gathering a following is so damn easy. Hell, pick any TV evangelist. It's not too hard.

you have no idea what you're talking about. seriously, stop thinking that what you were taught as a child somehow equates to actually digging in and reading and meditating and learning it for yourself. your whole argument is based on what you were TOLD that the Scripture says, forget what you were taught. the material is there. learn it for yourself.

No one told me about M-theory and Chaos theory as a child. As I said above, I don't care about scripture because I don't believe it is holy. That's not going to change if I read the Bible again.

nice of you to ignore the other 40 prophecies that i listed...

I didn't. I just didn't feel like addressing each of them after making my point.

LMFAO. you don't believe in Adam. you believe in a First Cause, by your own posts. you believe in evolution, by your own posts. Adam is not congruent with Darwinism. tribe of Judah? are you aware of how meticulous the Israelites are in keeping their records? (i can trace my father's mother's line all the way back to Joseph of Arithemathea {sp} heir to the throne of David? if you can't trace your roots back to King David, you have absolutely NO claim to this title.

Whatever. So, you've called me a liar. Still a choice you made. You could have well chosen to believe me. Maybe if I have a few of my buddies write down the same stuff I'm saying here you'll believe me.

30 pieces of silver: there is no modern equivilant. the OT prophesy states '30 pieces of silver,' the NT account says '30 pieces of silver.' '30 pieces of silver is 30 pieces of silver. the relative value doesn't matter.

Oh.. OK.. in that case, it was exactly 30 pieces of silver (one of which was a fork)

absolutely incorrect. you can't make this stuff up. you either fit the bill or you don't. calling a duck a fish doesn't make the duck a fish.

Absolutely incorrect. I can make this stuff up. And so can anyone else. But you said it yourself, calling a duck a fish doesn't make it a fish.. Calling Jesus the Christ doesn't make him the Christ.

[quoet=lv]
and now here you go invoking the pope, for whatever reason... i thought you rejected that man? no one is talking about what a MAN says you need to do. we're talking about a personal relationship with God...[/quote]
Obviously my remarks about the pope flew right on by you. Hell, they weren't even remarks about the pope, really, but remarks about my "authority"

Rather than go off on how ignorant of the Bible you think I am (when I'm not even trying to talk about It) maybe you oughta take a few moments and be sure you have some idea what I'm saying.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Let me get this straight you're referencing an anonymous guy on the internet while often making fun of other's sources for not having credentials. Their are plenty of guys who have studied the Bible and aren't anonymous who come up with more authoritative work than this guy. Its safe to say I believe that I am more persuaded by the guys that say the passage in Luke deals with Mary's lineage as opposed to Joseph's. His argument that Mary's kinship to Elizabeth makes Mary a Levite and not of the tribe a Judah is easily more of a stretch than Heli is Mary's father. He also manages to talk about generations between Abraham and David, David and the exile, and exile and Jesus and how the number of generations between the exile and Jesus only add up to 13(not 14 as in scripture).

No, Im not referencing an anon guy on the net (as some kind of end of the discussion authority). He already did the work, so I linked it.

You're persuaded the Luke's stuff is the line from Mary? Interesting considering it starts off:
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

and proceeds to list out the relationships from Joe's line. I guess the Bible just contains a mistake when it says Joseph here and not Mary, because you're non-annonymous guys said so?

Furthermore whats amazing is that Jesus had to be a decendant of David right? Jesus's lineage would have been an easy way for someone to discredit Him being the Messiah had they been able to prove he wasn't of David's decent. People of that day were anxious to reject Jesus, but noone during that time managed to discredit Jesus's lineage. Now his attempt to do so 2000 years later screams of someone who just doesn't want it to be true.

I don't care if it's true. That's the whole point. I could be true. Ill give you that... But you said it was verifiably true, which it's not.

BKB, you also seem to pick at only parts of the argument without thinking things through. Of course I don't have Jesus's family tree(other than the Bible) records here.

But you said they were there and it sounded like you knew that for a fact. But, it turns out you just believe they were there, I guess.

And its safe to say that they haven't survived the 2000 years. However we do know as I stated previously that because of how the land was divied up and establishing priesthood among the Jews that their genealogies were very important and were kept meticulously. The people of that time would have been able to prove or disprove Jesus's lineage fairly easily. Nobody in the first century even mounted an attack on His lineage even thought it would have been fairly easy had His lineage been a lie and the grave consequences it would have had to his claim to be the Messiah.
Once again prove now from both your mother and Father's side descendancy from David.


So, I guess I'm a little confused. The recent topic of conversation wasn't why we believe a certain tale(Christ's resurrection) happened and your counter claim that you could fake that just as easliy? And we're talking about the merits of those claims, right?
Would you agree that there are certain consequences to Christ's resurrection being true?

No. I wouldn't agree that there are certain consequences. Well... I suppose there would be consequences, but I don't agree with the implied assertion that modern Christians have any idea what they are.

 

[CookyPuss]

Let me get this straight you're referencing an anonymous guy on the internet while often making fun of other's sources for not having credentials. Their are plenty of guys who have studied the Bible and aren't anonymous who come up with more authoritative work than this guy.

including Jesus that is 14 everytime I count it.

The anonymous internet guy here is refencing something that is well known in Biblical scholarship. You are getting 14 because you are counting Jeconiah. However, Jeconiah is counted in the previous set. You can't count him twice. One of the sets only adds up to 13. Also, Jesus' being a decendant of David would not have been an unusal claim. Following the split of the kingdom of Isreal under Solomon, only the tribes of Benjamin (partial) and Judah remained plus the Levites who served as priests and traced their lineage to Aaron. By Jesus' time, nearly every Jew who wasn't a priest would claim to be from the tribe of Judah and could trace lineage to David.

The problem with the way most people today read the birth stories and the fullfillment of prophecies is that they read them as history. This assumes that the gospel writers set out to write the history of Jesus. What is more likely is that for literary and theological purposes, the writers fit the history to fulfill certain assumptions. It's the difference between saying Jesus was a decendant of David, therefore he must be the Christ or Jesus was the Christ, therefore he must have been a decendent of David. Jesus didn't walk around during his lifetime claimng to be Messiah. According to Mark, he kept it a secret. According to John, he only revealed to a Samaritan woman. The major evidence of Jesus role as messiah to his early followers was the resurrection. By the time the gospels were written, Jesus' role as messiah or Christ was fully accepted. So when it came to writing his life story, certain assumptions were made. Collections of Jesus' sayings and deeds had been passed along orally. When it came to putting the story to writing, the authors needed to flesh out the story. Of course, they turned to scripture to add depth.

Did Jesus fulfill every prophecy of the Hebrew Bible concerning the messiah? Certainly not. He did not conquer Isreal's enemies and usher in a new era of peace. Isreal didn't even make it 40 years after his death without nearly getting wiped out by the Romans with their rebellion. The whole concept of the second coming involves the idea that Jesus must come back to fulfill the rest of the prophecies.

Did Jesus become Christ at the resurrection (Paul), at his baptism (Mark), at his birth (Matthew, Luke), or at creation (John)? My point is that many people read the Bible as a cohesive, infallible, and inerrant history rather than as a collection of competing theologies and sharings of a certain people's experience of God. I think there are much greater debates than proving that there were 14 generations and not 13 in Matthew's geneaology of Jesus.

 

[BayBuck]

Once again... I claim I am descendant of David. You may either choose to accept that I am telling the truth and the consequences of my bloodline, or you may choose to call me a liar. But, in either case, you have done nothing more than accept or reject a tale.... and that's all you're doing with Christianity and the Bible as well.

Except we all know your BP persona well enough to know that you are willing to take on any stance--however outlandish--for the sake of furthering a hypothetical argument you may or may not actually believe. And frankly, in return for our belief you're not offering anything remotely approaching eternal salvation--maybe a couple greenies, at best. :)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Except we all know your BP persona well enough to know that you are willing to take on any stance--however outlandish--for the sake of furthering a hypothetical argument you may or may not actually believe. And frankly, in return for our belief you're not offering anything remotely approaching eternal salvation--maybe a couple greenies, at best. :)

I have 2 mill in vBucks too. :p

 

[buckeyegrad]

Did Jesus fulfill every prophecy of the Hebrew Bible concerning the messiah? Certainly not. He did not conquer Isreal's enemies and usher in a new era of peace. Isreal didn't even make it 40 years after his death without nearly getting wiped out by the Romans with their rebellion. The whole concept of the second coming involves the idea that Jesus must come back to fulfill the rest of the prophecies.

Ah, but to be the Messiah he could not fulfill them all at that time. In the midrash (Jewish commentary on the Scripturres that pre-date Jesus) it talks about the concept of the split, or dualing messiahs. This was recognition that there are actually two images of the Messiah presented in the Torah and the Prophets that contradict each other. The first image they called Messiah son of Joseph (suffering servant) and the second image they called Messiah son of David (conquering king). They could not reconcile how one person could fulfill all the prophesies so they hypothesized that perhaps there would actually be two Messiahs. Hence, the second coming is not a result of recognizing that all the prophesies were not fulfilled and therefore they created the idea of his return; but that his return, as Jesus promised them, is how the already understood concept in Jewish thought would play itself out.

Did Jesus become Christ at the resurrection (Paul), at his baptism (Mark), at his birth (Matthew, Luke), or at creation (John)? My point is that many people read the Bible as a cohesive, infallible, and inerrant history rather than as a collection of competing theologies and sharings of a certain people's experience of God. I think there are much greater debates than proving that there were 14 generations and not 13 in Matthew's geneaology of Jesus.

Please demonstrate how there are competing theologies. For example, I will need specific versus that show the writers of the Bible had competing theologies (i.e. contradictory ones). Show me where Paul, Mark, Matthew, or Luke contradict John's assertion that Christ was the Messiah from the beginning of creation) , because this is a claim that just does not hold water once you read what they wrote in their proper historic context (i.e. Jewish men who wrote to specific populations who were addressing very different theological questions).

 

[CookyPuss]

Ah, but to be the Messiah he could not fulfill them all at that time. In the midrash (Jewish commentary on the Scripturres that pre-date Jesus) it talks about the concept of the split, or dualing messiahs. This was recognition that there are actually two images of the Messiah presented in the Torah and the Prophets that contradict each other. The first image they called Messiah son of Joseph (suffering servant) and the second image they called Messiah son of David (conquering king). They could not reconcile how one person could fulfill all the prophesies so they hypothesized that perhaps there would actually be two Messiahs. Hence, the second coming is not a result of recognizing that all the prophesies were not fulfilled and therefore they created the idea of his return; but that his return, as Jesus promised them, is how the already understood concept in Jewish thought would play itself out.



Please demonstrate how there are competing theologies. For example, I will need specific versus that show the writers of the Bible had competing theologies (i.e. contradictory ones). Show me where Paul, Mark, Matthew, or Luke contradict John's assertion that Christ was the Messiah from the beginning of creation) , because this is a claim that just does not hold water once you read what they wrote in their proper historic context (i.e. Jewish men who wrote to specific populations who were addressing very different theological questions).

Grad, I'm impressed that you are aware of Midrash. However, the earliest midrashes that we are privy to were written in the 2nd century CE or later. They likely contain earlier oral traditions, but I would need to see the specific Messianic references you are citing. Even if that was one view during Jesus' time, it was not necessarily the prevailing view.

As for specific verses, I can't cite them from memory. Paul and the gospel writers were not systematic theologians (Paul was a little closer). The theology has to be extracted. I'll write more on this later when I get a chance to pull together some solid references. But briefly, Mark's gospel begins with Jesus' batism while Mark and Luke begin with his birth. John starts all the way back at creation. Paul rarely speaks of Jesus' life as he was much more concerned about the risen Christ. The competing theologies do not necessarily contradict one another. My point is that the writers of the NT did not have a homogenous view and modern readers tend to synthesize the writing (assuming a theological view we have been taught) rather than looking at their own unique perspectives. For Mark Jesus is a new Elijah (performing twice his miracles), for Matthew (goes to Egypt and comes to the promised land to regive the Law) he is a new Moses, and for John he is a new Adam (with God from creation and ends with him and a woman in a garden resetting the sin of Adam and Eve through the resurrection). These perspectives are not necessarily contradictory, but they are quite different and produce different theologies and interpretations of what it meant for Jesus to be the Messiah if taken apart from one another.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Grad, I'm impressed that you are aware of Midrash. However, the earliest midrashes that we are privy to were written in the 2nd century CE or later. They likely contain earlier oral traditions, but I would need to see the specific Messianic references you are citing. Even if that was one view during Jesus' time, it was not necessarily the prevailing view.

As for specific verses, I can't cite them from memory. Paul and the gospel writers were not systematic theologians (Paul was a little closer). The theology has to be extracted. I'll write more on this later when I get a chance to pull together some solid references. But briefly, Mark's gospel begins with Jesus' batism while Mark and Luke begin with his birth. John starts all the way back at creation. Paul rarely speaks of Jesus' life as he was much more concerned about the risen Christ. The competing theologies do not necessarily contradict one another. My point is that the writers of the NT did not have a homogenous view and modern readers tend to synthesize the writing (assuming a theological view we have been taught) rather than looking at their own unique perspectives. For Mark Jesus is a new Elijah (performing twice his miracles), for Matthew (goes to Egypt and comes to the promised land to regive the Law) he is a new Moses, and for John he is a new Adam (with God from creation and ends with him and a woman in a garden resetting the sin of Adam and Eve through the resurrection). These perspectives are not necessarily contradictory, but they are quite different and produce different theologies and interpretations of what it meant for Jesus to be the Messiah if taken apart from one another.

wow, new Moses, new Elijah? how is this a contradiction? at the transfiguration, who appeared on either side of Him? a new Adam? of course, he took the sins of Adam, and the sins of all Adam's progeny on His shoulders. it doesn't contradict because it all ties together. besides, who only reads ONE book of the Bible? because they focus on different aspects of His life, they should paint slightly differing pictures, but only in order to give you a more complete understanding of who He is.

 

[CookyPuss]

wow, new Moses, new Elijah? how is this a contradiction? at the transfiguration, who appeared on either side of Him? a new Adam? of course, he took the sins of Adam, and the sins of all Adam's progeny on His shoulders. it doesn't contradict because it all ties together. besides, who only reads ONE book of the Bible? because they focus on different aspects of His life, they should paint slightly differing pictures, but only in order to give you a more complete understanding of who He is.

I noted in my post that they do not necessarily contradict one another. My point was that each one was intended to be a complete picture, not to be included in a collection of different pictures and that there is value in examining the different approaches. My other point is that most readers of the Bible superimpose their own theology and value system over what they read and synthesize what were originally very different points of view. It's not like Mark set down tor write the "incomplete" gospel and left a footnote: "by the way, you really need to read Matthew, Luke, and John as well." Your assertion that together they paint a more complete picture may very well be true, but that was not the intention of the author.

 

[lvbuckeye]

i think it was the intent of the authors to write what they observed. i don't think that any of them was trying to portray Him one way or another.