Agrippina wrote:I've known people who see it that way. Of course people are able to understand the difference between inanimate parables and ones involving real people, that's why people use phrases such as the "prodigal son" when a recalcitrant child returns to the family, or when someone does something good for someone else, they call them a "good Samaritan" even when the do-gooder is an American. LOL.

When I say that people take the Bible literally, I'm talking about the history. That there exists a creationism museum and untold numbers of attempts at reproducing the ark, is more than proof that these people want to convince those of us who don't believe that the history is real.

Well, that's why I use the phrase 100% literalism, which as far as I can see, produces some very weird interpretations indeed. I suppose the word 'literalism' is often used as code for 'Genesis literalism'. But even the fundies are not 100%, at least, the ones I've discussed this with. They do accept that the vine is metaphoric in 'I am the vine'.

nunnington wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

nunnington wrote:914

But nobody takes the Bible 100% literally, do they?

Yep, see Agrippina's post above. Also, there are PLENTY of people here in Texas that are Biblical literalists, so yes.

For example, you don't find people who say of a parable, 'did that man really send his sons out to the fields?'

Yes, you do.

So there are accepted non-literal parts of the Bible. Isn't this then cherry-picking?

Of course it is. You have no idea which parts of the Bible should be parable and which are not. Neither does anyone else. You just think you do because it helps you reinforce your own belief system that you have evolved outside of the Bible.

Well, 100% literalism would mean that 'I am the vine; you are the branches' is talking about horticulture, and 'you are the salt of the earth', cuisine.

Okay, good point.

It's hard to believe that anyone is so literalist. And some people don't take the parables symbolically? The Prodigal Son is about family therapy?

Some people come pretty damn close to that, seriously.

Welcome to Texas, I guess.

Anyway....

Matthew Chapter 9 has Jesus healing more sick people. Perhaps this was to try to make him the equal of other assumed healers, such as the Roman Emperors, etc. Some scribes call him a blasphemer and it's all very twee, really.

Then in 9:9 through 9:13, Jesus runs into Matthew (who is decidedly NOT the author of this gospel) and Matthew wants to score some weed, so he follows Jesus. Jesus goes to a house and holds court and a whole bunch of people show up to be healed. Jesus sits down and eats with publicans and sinners (in those days, people who ran pubs, i.e. publicans, were considered scum) to the surprise of the Pharisees. Jesus states that the whole do not need help, but the sick do. He doesn't care if the righteous repent, he wants sinners to repent.

Several problems here.

First, the entire passage is Matthew cribbing from Mark 2:14-17, except that Jesus doesn't meet Matthew, he meets some dude named Levi the son of Alphaeus. The gospels cannot even agree on who the disciples are, and apologists as usual make shit up to try and make it fit. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/matthew.htm

It's probably worthwhile to define Pharisee at this point. Most Christians don't even know who or what a Pharisee is. Pharisees were a sect of Jews at the time who demanded absolute and total orthodox obedience to the laws of the Torah. In other words, you had to follow the hundreds of laws in Leviticus, etc. Sort of Jewish fundamentalists. Most Christians think Pharisees are merely hypocrites and they certainly are that, but what they don't realize is that they were also Torah literalists.

Sort of puts Biblical literalists into a new light. I mean, Hellloooooo?

In 9:13, Jesus states he will not sacrifice, which contradicts a whole crapload of verses in the Old Testament where God demands sacrifices. One could argue that Jesus as the Son of God personally doesn't need to sacrifice (maybe because he sort of already is one), but there's nothing there that states that Christians don't need to sacrifice to God. So, Christians, start offing farm animals, I guess.

So then in 9:14 the followers of John the Baptist show up (all 5 of them, I guess) and demand to know why he's not fasting since they fast and so do the Pharisees. What gives, dude? Jesus's reply frankly makes zero sense, as a lot of his ramblings make no sense. Christians try to interpret these passages, but honestly, it's just rambling fucking nonsense:

"Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast."

"No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse."

"Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved."

Yeah, so, dude, why aren't you fasting again? I mean, that's great and all, fucking fascinating, but it doesn't answer the fucking question.

So that brings us to 9:18 where Jairus, who Matthew thought was some big wheel (but apparently was the local garbage collector or something since history didn't care about him) shows up and says his daughter is dead and can Jesus raise her from the dead. What's asinine here is that Matthew is again cribbing from Mark, but in Mark 5:22-23 (as well as Luke) the daughter is at the point of death but is not yet dead. Typical of this gospel writer to exaggerate and lie about even little details.

So, anyway, Jesus goes to check out the daughter and he tells her that her faith has healed her.

Massive problem with this. If faith alone can heal, how come Christians get sick? Bad, bad, bad advice, Jesus.

Jesus then heals two blind guys in 9:27-30 but again Matthew is lying since he copied Mark 8:22-26 who only has one blind guy. Jesus also tells them (him) to not tell anyone that he healed him. Very strange if Jesus is trying to spread the gospel, right?

What's kind of funny is that in 9:31, the two ex-blind guys go out and tell everyone within shouting distance. So much for keeping that on the down low.

It's good to point out here, I think, that none of this happened. Indeed, it could not have or it would have been recorded elsewhere. We have good knowledge of this time of history, and none of this happens anywhere outside of the Bible. It's all bullshit.

In 9:32-33, Jesus casts out a devil. Again, to be a Christian, one must believe in demons and devils.

The Chapter leaves off with Jesus wandering around healing people and a vast multitude of folks showing up to be healed and fainting in his presence. Really, it's the stuff of Benny Hinn and it is impossible that any of this happened without record.


Chapter 10 starts out with one Hell of a fucking whopper: Jesus gives his disciples the power to heal as well.

Wait...what...?

Yeah, this faith healing stuff can be passed on to additional individuals. Which sort of begs the question, why can't Christians do this today? I mean, seems pretty obvious: if God really wanted to convert people, have the faithful be able to heal others.

It also mentions 12 disciples, and if you've been following along, you'll note that so far Jesus has picked up 7 fellow travelers, not twelve. Anyway, here are their names: Simon Peter, Andrew Peter, James McZebedee, John McZebedee, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew the Publican, James the son of Alphaeus (hey, I thought that was Matthew), Lebbaeus Thaddeus, Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot. Consider this: the Bible cannot even get the list of these 12 guys right. There are four lists, and each one is different than the other. It's not like we're trying to calculate pi out to 57 digits here. We just want to keep track of 12 guys, how fucking hard is that?

So in 10:5, Jesus sends Comet, Cupid, Dancer, Prancer, Donner, Blitzen, Dasher, Vixen, Rudolph, Dasher the son of Lee Strassberg's sister's aunt, and two other hippies out into the world to preach the Good News. He tells them to not preach to anyone not Jewish. I guess Paul didn't get the memo. But then, neither did Matthew, who contradicts this in chapter 28.

Yet again Jesus calls on them to cast out devils. Apparently demonic possession was a big problem in Palestine at the time. No, really, again, if you are a Christian, it is clear: demons are real.

In 10:15, Jesus says that all cities that refuse entry to his disciples will be smitten as if they were Sodom or Gomorrah on Judgement Day. Oh, real moral there dude. Let's hold the entire city and it's descendants culpable for the decision made an eon ago by some ignorant fucks who happened to be in charge at the time. Christians are exhorted time and time again to hold the sons guilty for the sins of the fathers. Has there ever been a more immoral religion?

Okay, well, probably, yeah. At least their not sacrificing children yet.

So in 10:21 Jesus says brother will give up brother to death, and the father the child, and children will rise up against their parents and cause them to be put to death.

Okay, so I spoke too soon.

In 10:22, Jesus says that those who endure to the end times will be saved. It's quite clear from this passage and multiple others that the gospel writers thought Jesus was coming back in their own lifetimes. In 10:23, Jesus cannot return until the gospel has been preached throughout Israel. Somehow, I think that's been done already. What's keeping him? Broken alarm clock?

In 10:24-25 Jesus is perfectly fine with slavery.

In 10:28, Jesus says to fear God since he can destroy both body and soul in Hell. That's interesting. Directly contradicts the sects that teach the soul IS the body and also implies that torture in Hell is not necessarily eternal.

In 10:29-31 Jesus tells Sneezy, Sleepy, Dopey, Grumpy, Happy, Bashful, Doc, etc. that they are worth more than sparrows to God. Um....yeah.

In 10:32-33 Jesus says anyone who denies him will be denied entrance to heaven. Tell that to Simon Peter, who denies Jesus three times.

In 10:34 Jesus says he does not come in peace. He's here to create marital and family strife. So much for family values. In fact, Matthew is copying Micah 7:6 here.

In 10:37 in fact, and this should be considered more repulsive that it is, Jesus tells everyone they have to love him more than their families. Sick.

I'm off for a week to Mordor Arizona, but will cover chapter 11 and etc when I get back.

So in 10:5, Jesus sends Comet, Cupid, Dancer, Prancer, Donner, Blitzen, Dasher, Vixen, Rudolph, Dasher the son of Lee Strassberg's sister's aunt, and two other hippies out into the world to preach the Good News. He tells them to not preach to anyone not Jewish. I guess Paul didn't get the memo. But then, neither did Matthew, who contradicts this in chapter 28.

In 10:29-31 Jesus tells Sneezy, Sleepy, Dopey, Grumpy, Happy, Bashful, Doc, etc. that they are worth more than sparrows to God. Um....yeah.

Or Dave, Dee. Dozey. Mick and Titch, or some other pop group from the 1960s. Annafried, Bjorn, Benny and Agnetha??

I have to ask why is it that Christians don't see that the writers of the Gospels couldn't get the names of the disciples right, surely if you're cribbing a list of names, you'll make sure they're the right ones?

Agrippina wrote:

So in 10:5, Jesus sends Comet, Cupid, Dancer, Prancer, Donner, Blitzen, Dasher, Vixen, Rudolph, Dasher the son of Lee Strassberg's sister's aunt, and two other hippies out into the world to preach the Good News. He tells them to not preach to anyone not Jewish. I guess Paul didn't get the memo. But then, neither did Matthew, who contradicts this in chapter 28.

In 10:29-31 Jesus tells Sneezy, Sleepy, Dopey, Grumpy, Happy, Bashful, Doc, etc. that they are worth more than sparrows to God. Um....yeah.

Or Dave, Dee. Dozey. Mick and Titch, or some other pop group from the 1960s. Annafried, Bjorn, Benny and Agnetha??

I have to ask why is it that Christians don't see that the writers of the Gospels couldn't get the names of the disciples right, surely if you're cribbing a list of names, you'll make sure they're the right ones?

Exactly. The gospels really are the most ridiculous documents.

NineOneFour wrote:
It's probably worthwhile to define Pharisee at this point. Most Christians don't even know who or what a Pharisee is. Pharisees were a sect of Jews at the time who demanded absolute and total orthodox obedience to the laws of the Torah. In other words, you had to follow the hundreds of laws in Leviticus, etc. Sort of Jewish fundamentalists. Most Christians think Pharisees are merely hypocrites and they certainly are that, but what they don't realize is that they were also Torah literalists.

Sort of puts Biblical literalists into a new light. I mean, Hellloooooo?

Turns out you're just as ignorant as to what the Pharisees were as the Christians are!

Zwaarddijk wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:
It's probably worthwhile to define Pharisee at this point. Most Christians don't even know who or what a Pharisee is. Pharisees were a sect of Jews at the time who demanded absolute and total orthodox obedience to the laws of the Torah. In other words, you had to follow the hundreds of laws in Leviticus, etc. Sort of Jewish fundamentalists. Most Christians think Pharisees are merely hypocrites and they certainly are that, but what they don't realize is that they were also Torah literalists.

Sort of puts Biblical literalists into a new light. I mean, Hellloooooo?

Turns out you're just as ignorant as to what the Pharisees were as the Christians are!

Enlighten me.

While we're awaiting "enlightenment", it's also worth noting the Pharisees were opposed to the Jewish rebellion of 70 AD, about the time Matthew was written. They were fairly despised for this and for making peace with the Romans afterwards. So it's unlikely the Pharisees are getting a fair shake in any of the gospels.

NineOneFour wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:
It's probably worthwhile to define Pharisee at this point. Most Christians don't even know who or what a Pharisee is. Pharisees were a sect of Jews at the time who demanded absolute and total orthodox obedience to the laws of the Torah. In other words, you had to follow the hundreds of laws in Leviticus, etc. Sort of Jewish fundamentalists. Most Christians think Pharisees are merely hypocrites and they certainly are that, but what they don't realize is that they were also Torah literalists.

Sort of puts Biblical literalists into a new light. I mean, Hellloooooo?

Turns out you're just as ignorant as to what the Pharisees were as the Christians are!

Enlighten me.

Whereas the pharisees were strict, they were by no means literalists. They had a rich, extrabiblical tradition, which to some extent tempered the laws in the Torah, and to some extent added other laws that are nowhere to be found in the Bible.

Furthermore, a lot of the traditions of the pharisees hinge on the very idea that the Written Torah is intentionally not sufficient - that it contains intentional lacunae, ambiguities and also actual leeway.
These made the extra-biblical tradition both a rather flexible tool for tempering rules that were seen as too excessive (for instance, they made a lot of rules that restricted when a pharisaic court could sentence someone to death. The requirements were so unsurmountable that they had to come up with, using some rather tricky eisegesis, ways of justifying a separate, secular court system so that villains wouldn't be able to abuse the apparent weakness of the pharisaic courts; the secular court system preferred jailing people over killing them, most of the time, a punishment that is entirely absent in the Torah.)

Some of the pharisaic interpretation of the pentateuch hinges on rather innovative readings (and even what could be argued are 'intentional misreadings') of the text, some certainly does follow the text closely, some inserts external tradition that tempers the rules.

As for 'demanding absolute and total orthodox obedience' - no, they didn't. Of course they would have preferred something like that, but they also realized that humans are humans, and the talmudic religious legal system they built up contains loads of provisions for that. And in the anecdotes they told to teach ethics, they did maintain that even someone that doesn't totally and absolutely obey the Torah in an orthodox matter can be a just man.

They are a complicated movement, one that the NT makes a pretty one-sided strawman of. But unlike some of the other movements early Christianity went up against, Pharisaism is extant in the form of rabbinic Judaism (orthodox and conservative, mostly, derive pretty straight away from it), and we can get a fairly good look into their thinking by reading the ample - yet difficult - writings they left behind in the form of the targumim, the midrashim, the mishna, and the two Talmuds.

(Although all of those writings are language games so bizarre and unusual to the normal modern reader, that I wouldn't really recommend reading them - at least not without actually trying to learn a really huge load about the way they talked about stuff - which most of the time is far from straightforward, and one is very likely to miss their point. Even at times when what they're talking of doesn't even sound remotely controversial. Especially the talmuds are mostly meant to be a kind of ... summary of ongoing discussions, at times half-finished, and often using very intricate analogies or discussing implications of things the old pharisees barely expected ever to occur in ways that just confuse the reader.)

Zwaarddijk wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:
Turns out you're just as ignorant as to what the Pharisees were as the Christians are!

Enlighten me.

Whereas the pharisees were strict, they were by no means literalists. They had a rich, extrabiblical tradition, which to some extent tempered the laws in the Torah, and to some extent added other laws that are nowhere to be found in the Bible.

Furthermore, a lot of the traditions of the pharisees hinge on the very idea that the Written Torah is intentionally not sufficient - that it contains intentional lacunae, ambiguities and also actual leeway.
These made the extra-biblical tradition both a rather flexible tool for tempering rules that were seen as too excessive (for instance, they made a lot of rules that restricted when a pharisaic court could sentence someone to death. The requirements were so unsurmountable that they had to come up with, using some rather tricky eisegesis, ways of justifying a separate, secular court system so that villains wouldn't be able to abuse the apparent weakness of the pharisaic courts; the secular court system preferred jailing people over killing them, most of the time, a punishment that is entirely absent in the Torah.)

Some of the pharisaic interpretation of the pentateuch hinges on rather innovative readings (and even what could be argued are 'intentional misreadings') of the text, some certainly does follow the text closely, some inserts external tradition that tempers the rules.

As for 'demanding absolute and total orthodox obedience' - no, they didn't. Of course they would have preferred something like that, but they also realized that humans are humans, and the talmudic religious legal system they built up contains loads of provisions for that. And in the anecdotes they told to teach ethics, they did maintain that even someone that doesn't totally and absolutely obey the Torah in an orthodox matter can be a just man.

They are a complicated movement, one that the NT makes a pretty one-sided strawman of. But unlike some of the other movements early Christianity went up against, Pharisaism is extant in the form of rabbinic Judaism (orthodox and conservative, mostly, derive pretty straight away from it), and we can get a fairly good look into their thinking by reading the ample - yet difficult - writings they left behind in the form of the targumim, the midrashim, the mishna, and the two Talmuds.

(Although all of those writings are language games so bizarre and unusual to the normal modern reader, that I wouldn't really recommend reading them - at least not without actually trying to learn a really huge load about the way they talked about stuff - which most of the time is far from straightforward, and one is very likely to miss their point. Even at times when what they're talking of doesn't even sound remotely controversial. Especially the talmuds are mostly meant to be a kind of ... summary of ongoing discussions, at times half-finished, and often using very intricate analogies or discussing implications of things the old pharisees barely expected ever to occur in ways that just confuse the reader.)

Appreciate the info. I actually went back and checked my sources and went deeper into what a Pharisee is (or was) and you are entirely correct.

I'd recommend some books on the Talmud, although both have some ideological slant on account of being written by religious Jews.
(Also, the talmud was mainly redacted in about 200-400 CE, but there's all reason to think it gives a fairly accurate description of the kind of thought that pharisaism represented earlier as well.)

Adin Steinsaltz's The Essential Talmud
is written by an orthodox rabbi, and is a rather recent volume.

Abraham Cohen's Everyman's Talmud is a bit older, and he wasn't the best of talmudic scholars (some points made in obtuse manners seem to have passed him by, and he mentions the punchline as though it were a serious point), he had a fairly good grasp of it, and he also knew a lot about the history of the talmud. (I have come across things that would sort of vaguely point at Cohen having been a conservative rabbi, with background in the reform movement, but I have nowhere been able to verify it).

Also, nice to get appreciated

Zwaarddijk wrote:I'd recommend some books on the Talmud, although both have some ideological slant on account of being written by religious Jews.
(Also, the talmud was mainly redacted in about 200-400 CE, but there's all reason to think it gives a fairly accurate description of the kind of thought that pharisaism represented earlier as well.)

Adin Steinsaltz's The Essential Talmud
is written by an orthodox rabbi, and is a rather recent volume.

Abraham Cohen's Everyman's Talmud is a bit older, and he wasn't the best of talmudic scholars (some points made in obtuse manners seem to have passed him by, and he mentions the punchline as though it were a serious point), he had a fairly good grasp of it, and he also knew a lot about the history of the talmud. (I have come across things that would sort of vaguely point at Cohen having been a conservative rabbi, with background in the reform movement, but I have nowhere been able to verify it).

Also, nice to get appreciated

See, I'm not a complete asshole, just to religious bigots and liars.

Aw now I feel all warm and fuzzy because a potential fight has been averted.

Yes, Zwaarddijk, from me too, thank you for clarifying that.

And 914, I don't think you're an asshole, I love a good sense of humour.

Good grief 914, how did I miss that you'd left me in the dust on the post count. Did you say you were going to be away, I can see I have to do some serious catching up. Sorry about the derail folks. I had to go looking for 914 on this auspicious occasion. Now back to Matthew.

Agrippina wrote:Good grief 914, how did I miss that you'd left me in the dust on the post count. Did you say you were going to be away, I can see I have to do some serious catching up. Sorry about the derail folks. I had to go looking for 914 on this auspicious occasion. Now back to Matthew.

I have to keep up with this thread...it's mandatory. NineOneFour is doing a kick-ass good job on Matthew. Whoever wrote that joke of a biography was doing little more than just making the writer of Mark out to be a liar. The thing about the saints coming out of the graves (Matt. 27:52-53) and appearing to many people in Jerusalem also tells that Matthew is one of those who were saying "that the resurrection is past already" (2 Tim. 2:18). The whole of the NT seems to be a contest of who can tell the biggest whopper and should be treated with the same respect it deserves - none.

Corky wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Good grief 914, how did I miss that you'd left me in the dust on the post count. Did you say you were going to be away, I can see I have to do some serious catching up. Sorry about the derail folks. I had to go looking for 914 on this auspicious occasion. Now back to Matthew.

I have to keep up with this thread...it's mandatory. NineOneFour is doing a kick-ass good job on Matthew. Whoever wrote that joke of a biography was doing little more than just making the writer of Mark out to be a liar. The thing about the saints coming out of the graves (Matt. 27:52-53) and appearing to many people in Jerusalem also tells that Matthew is one of those who were saying "that the resurrection is past already" (2 Tim. 2:18). The whole of the NT seems to be a contest of who can tell the biggest whopper and should be treated with the same respect it deserves - none.

I concur!

NineOneFour wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:uhm, I've never been conditioned to take the Quran, the Talmud, the Gilgamesh or anything seriously, yet when I write or talk about them, I tend to do so in a serious, detached manner. Don't make a spectacle out of irreverent writing - it just gets tedious and annoying to read. Especially the times that the problems you ridicule happen not to be problems (which does occur at times) - that just makes you look like an ass.

That's nice. I'll try to care if I look like an ass.

Someday.

Our recent exchange about Pharisees kind of connects back to this. When writing irreverently, at least I experience that my confidence in the quality of my own knowledge quickly surpasses the actual quality. This seems to be a trap you ran into wrt the Pharisees, for one.

NT Scripture even criticizes the Pharisees for not adhering to the letter of the law - e.g. in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for adhering to the extrabiblical tradition at the expense of the biblical laws. So it's kind of clear that the gospels suggest Jesus was more willing to support a Torah literalism as far as the laws to adhere to goes, and not, as you said, depicting him as an anti-literalist. So, the uberconservative jerks in Christianity do have more support for their stances from the gospels than one'd initially think. I am not saying they're right in how they behave and think, but they're less inconsistent than your analysis would have them.

The parts of the OT Laws he does contradict, he seems to assume basically were valid, but that he had been given some kind of authority by God himself to change (with the exception of divorce, which he claimed was a distortion written in by Moses himself). This does get a bit tricky though, as Jesus at some point seems to imply that rabbinic authority is valid: Matthew 23 is an interesting counterpoint there. If Jesus were opposed to the Pharisaic tradition, what he's saying there is kind of problematic, but what he says elsewhere supports the view that he did think the Pharisaic tradition was downright an apostasy.

It's very difficult figuring out where Christianity was in relation to other 2nd temple/post-temple movements of Judaism.

I am not entirely sure about agreeing that Jesus' parables are complete nonsense, altho' they very well may be. My first assumption would've been that they're just a rather odd set of language games, but on the other hand, there's pretty good arguments that some of Jesus' parables are misunderstood distortions of stuff from greek philosophers, that either Jesus nicked in the form of already misunderstood versions, or misunderstood them himself, or they were misunderstood by the audiences, and they may have been even more distorted en route to the evangelists.
(He himself is alleged to have said he spoke in parables in order that the audiences not understand, which is a weird thing to say, for someone that is alleged to be a great teacher of ethics.)

BTW, one quote from the Talmud regarding the strictness of the pharisees: "The deliberate errors of the unlearned are regarded as unintentional, while the unintentional mistakes of the scholars are regarded as deliberate". Strict in-group discipline, for sure, the guardians sort of preoccupied with guarding each other, and being lenient to the laity.

Corky wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Good grief 914, how did I miss that you'd left me in the dust on the post count. Did you say you were going to be away, I can see I have to do some serious catching up. Sorry about the derail folks. I had to go looking for 914 on this auspicious occasion. Now back to Matthew.

I have to keep up with this thread...it's mandatory. NineOneFour is doing a kick-ass good job on Matthew. Whoever wrote that joke of a biography was doing little more than just making the writer of Mark out to be a liar. The thing about the saints coming out of the graves (Matt. 27:52-53) and appearing to many people in Jerusalem also tells that Matthew is one of those who were saying "that the resurrection is past already" (2 Tim. 2:18). The whole of the NT seems to be a contest of who can tell the biggest whopper and should be treated with the same respect it deserves - none.

@Corky & Agrippna: Thanks, I try!

Agrippina wrote:
Or Dave, Dee. Dozey. Mick and Titch, or some other pop group from the 1960s. Annafried, Bjorn, Benny and Agnetha??

It's a miracle!

Mark 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

You see, it's in the Bible!