Posted by Bob - the Alien on December 04, 2003 at 10:10:13:
In Reply to: Re: I am channelling all the great philosophers now... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Only $19.95! posted by greg chaplik on December 04, 2003 at 09:36:22:
I suppose I just do not see a varying account as a flaw or contradiction.
If anything, it proves my point -- people see and experience differing things, depending on where they are in their life and on their path.
All witnesses to that event surely saw the same thing. But everyone remembers different details of any event which they witness. Only one author had a memory of what was said... the others probably disregarded whatever was said as insignificant.
I am sure you know that the gospels were not a news report. They were written years later. And by people who had a different perspective on Jesus than we do today -- they heard him speak constantly, and not always as a teacher. He was a companion, and they had their doubts at times as to his nature. I am sure he also spoke to them every day just as a normal person. We see him differently, and take every word he said as 'Gospel'. But with their more commonplace perspective, is it really a surprise that years later, only one remembered a statement that the rest thought insignificant? I think it shows that that statement is significant, but only to a small portion of people. To the rest of us, we do not understand the true meaning of the statement and can put it aside it until we do.
Also, when God gives revelation to people, he does not give it word for word. At least, not always. He gives the concepts, and the authors choose their own words. In the 4 gospels, I suspect he simply inspired people to tell the story. Some specifics were surely inspired in greater detail than others, but differences in the telling of the story are not flaws.
If one telling was intended to give every detail perfectly, why are there 4 versions? I think that fact shows that the differences were intended -- and therefore they do mean something.
For me, the differences in factual tellings of the story show that there was more to the story than even the gospels tell. The gospels are teaching tools, not complete accurate logs of the events. What is meaningful and significant was put in, and some differences or omissions exist. I think the differences deserve study and prayer... but the question is not which version is true, but why did only one author see it that way? What lesson lies behind the differing perceptions of the authors?
With Love,
Bob - the Alien
Also, while I could leave it there, let me throw out one more theory/question --
How did God decide the timing of the coming of Jesus? How will he decide the timing of his second coming?
I think the key to those asnwers lies in the spiritual progression of the human race as a whole. He placed us on the earth as immature spiritual beings. He gave the old testament prophets ways to live that helped them grow. When we were ready, he sent Jesus to take us past the major milestone in our progression. We are currently still learning from Jesus' teachings, and growing. My personal theory is that the moment we stop learning as a whole, Jesus comes again. Which is why the timing is partially up to us, and why scriptures tells us that noone knows the exact timing. This world does not exist to sit idly. Every event and lack of event in history is to push us farther along.
So how does that impact our discussion of scripture? God knew that we would have a progression in our understanding. From the first words of the Old Testament to the newest words of scriptures, they were all written with many levels of meaning, to always have something to offer us as we progress both personally and as the human race.
We do not yet have all knowledge. There is still knowledge that no man has ever held. Until all knowledge is given, there will always be what appears to be these flaws and contradictions. But like I said, they are intentional, they show us where our knowledge is incomplete, and at the end of time, we all will understand without contradiction.
So you can keep throwing contradictions and flaws at me, and to most I will have a response. To the ones which I cannot respond, I will give this philosophy back to you. My knowledge is incomplete, and I both accept and embrace that. But I do not hold up my knowledge as a measure against which scriptures can be held. They are perfect in their own right, and the flaws exist in myself, not the Scriptures.
:)