You might be a Christian Fundamentalist if .....
I
a.. You complain when Christians aren't allowed to practice religion in
other countries, but you go berzerker when someone tries to set up a Mosque
in your neighbourhood.
b.. You consider a single prayer that was 'answered' during your life time
as a high success rate.
c.. You constantly challenge the work of respected scientists who
established the age of the Earth as billions of years old through sound
scientific practices, but have no problem believing the word of ancient
tribesman who think it's only several generations old.
d.. You believe followers of every other religion will spend an eternity
in Hell, but still consider your religion the most tolerant and
understanding.
e.. You believe ancient old debunked myths like Witchcraft are still
relevant today and will therefore avoid Harry Potter movies just to be safe.
f.. You are insulted when scientists say we evolved from other life forms,
but have no problem believing we were created from dirt.
g.. You believe we were created from dirt.
h.. You think it quite reasonable that a man could horde 2 of every animal
on the planet, put them in a boat, and have enough food to keep them alive
for 40 days.
i.. You hastily deny the existence of other Gods, but become outraged when
someone denies the existence of yours.
j.. You are arrogant enough to think the Earth and its inhabitants are the
centre of and only life in the entire universe, despite it being
statistically impossible.
k.. You dismiss the scientifically proven explanation of any event because
you don't understand it, but are happy to just say "God did it" without
proof.
l.. You think AIDS is Gods punishment for homosexuality.
m.. You think homosexuality is a reversible choice.
n.. You deplore homosexuality, but will vigorously defend your own Pastor
when he is 'outed'.
o.. Even though science, physics, medicine and biology have explained it,
someone 'speaking in tounges' is all the 'evidence' you need to prove
Christianity.
p.. You know less about the Bible than your athiest and agnostic friends.
q.. You dismiss all explanations of events that can't be answered with
'God did it' as nonsense.
r.. You think anyone with an open mind has been influenced by the Devil.
s.. You share common points of view with the same types of people who
thought the Earth was flat.
from http://www.rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=1106
--
MY SOUNDCLICK PAGE- download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
FUNDY FUNHOUSE -
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/
- a resource on the current Fundamentalist Dark Age and Christian
fundamentalism.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Mark, I know you have posted this. You hate any one who
says that the Bible contains God's truth for us.
> You might be a Christian Fundamentalist if:
> a.. You complain when Christians aren't allowed to practice religion in
> other countries, but you go berzerker when someone tries to set up a Mosque
> in your neighbourhood.
I did not go beseerck when a mosque was established some distence from
my home, for the simple reason I did not know such was happening.
I have spoken on Talk-Back Radio explaining why some Muslim ideas are
not correct. I have posted in these newsgroups on the same issue.
Until other evidence can be presented I will continue to believe that
Muhammed used the Biblical scriptures to impose his own religion on
the peoples of his area.
> b.. You consider a single prayer that was 'answered' during your life time
> as a high success rate.
The succes rate is not an issue. Prayer is speaking with God.
Sometimes He answers in the affirmative, sometimes in the negative and
sometimes He says wait a while.
God makes the the decision as to the answer.
> c.. You constantly challenge the work of respected scientists who
> established the age of the Earth as billions of years old through sound
> scientific practices, but have no problem believing the word of ancient
> tribesman who think it's only several generations old.
There is a good possibility that the earth is much younger than
Evolutionists state. They want an old earth because of the need for
gradual change from unicellular to multicelluar organisms.
Evolutionists will 'not allow the foot of God in the door'.
> d.. You believe followers of every other religion will spend an eternity
> in Hell, but still consider your religion the most tolerant and
> understanding.
Who will and who won't be in Heaven and Hell is determined by God
alone.
The Bible has specific instructions.
Salvation by grace (God's mercy, through faith, not of good works, it
is a gift)
> e.. You believe ancient old debunked myths like Witchcraft are still
> relevant today and will therefore avoid Harry Potter movies just to be safe.
I have followed the films on Channel 9. I have found other films to be
of greater value to me.
> f.. You are insulted when scientists say we evolved from other life forms,
> but have no problem believing we were created from dirt.
God did it. So no problem to me. Scientists still have not given proof
of the ascent up the tree of life. Why would God work that way when He
has the power
to create each species within itself with power to change in different
environmantal circumstance? .
> g.. You believe we were created from dirt.
After death our bodies return to dirt, but our soul is with God
through faith in Jesus Christ.
> h.. You think it quite reasonable that a man could horde 2 of every animal
> on the planet, put them in a boat, and have enough food to keep them alive
> for 40 days.
Many could have hibernated. It has been shown experimentally that
Noah's ark was possible. Also many cultures throughout the world have
flood stories that have amazing similarities.
> i.. You hastily deny the existence of other Gods, but become outraged when
> someone denies the existence of yours.
I do not become outraged. I am sad that the gospel of Jesus Christ has
been distorted at times through the last two millenium.
> j.. You are arrogant enough to think the Earth and its inhabitants are the
> centre of and only life in the entire universe, despite it being
> statistically impossible.
Statistically impossible? But what about the chemicals, gases,
temperatures in the universe away from the earth?.
I have not investigated those ideas. But if God chose the earth for
human habitation, I am content with that.
> k.. You dismiss the scientifically proven explanation of any event because
> you don't understand it, but are happy to just say "God did it" without
> proof.
Scientists have been indoctrinated with evolutionary theory through
the educational system for the last more than fifty years. Some have
broken free from that indoctrination and have given reasons from their
research that it could not all have happened by mere chance.
> l.. You think AIDS is Gods punishment for homosexuality.
I did not think that, but homosexuals have had the higher death toll
from that disease.
> m.. You think homosexuality is a reversible choice.
There have been those who have reversed following Christian
psychological counselling.
> n.. You deplore homosexuality, but will vigorously defend your own Pastor
> when he is 'outed'.
I have never had a pastor who was 'outed'
> o.. Even though science, physics, medicine and biology have explained it,
> someone 'speaking in tongues' is all the 'evidence' you need to prove
> Christianity.
I had not heard about any scientific evidence about 'speaking in
tongues' until I posted my own investigations and conclusions from my
language studies of how children acquire language.
> p.. You know less about the Bible than your athiest and agnostic friends.
In some instances that is so. But the atheists and agnostics are
seeking to prove the Bible incorrect and are not truthful in the way
they take verses out of contect to make their studies appear to be
correct to the unwary.
> q.. You dismiss all explanations of events that can't be answered with
> 'God did it' as nonsense.
I look at the evidence as given on both sides as far as is possible in
the limited time that I have. I believe that God created originally
with the 'ability' within a species to change in different
environmental circumstances, but not to change to another species ie
cats will not become dogs.
> r.. You think anyone with an open mind has been influenced by the Devil.
Not necessarily so.
But some very very devilish schemes have come from those with 'open
minds'.
> s.. You share common points of view with the same types of people who
> thought the Earth was flat.
In modern times I would doubt that anyone who has had the advantage
of educational programmes would think the 'earth was flat'. I would
also doubt that those persons would think the earth went round the
sun.
Ptolomy, quite a famous mathematician avbout 100AD (?) send the
scientific community astray about that and even the leaders of the
Church at Rome when they accepted his word on the matter.
Galileo, Geocentrism and Joshua's Long Day Questions and Answers
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3006/
I was thinking last night that the reason for Joshia's Long Day may
have been that the Shekinah Glory of God replaced the sun for the
night hours.
It was that Shekinah Glory that appeared in the Temple and was also
the Star of Bethlehem for it travelled in a way contrary to the
various heavenly bodies that have been hypothesised for it.
Mark, your attitude and the attitude of those who find fault with the
Bible do so from 'man's so-called wisdom', as you desire to put
yourselves in control, above God Almighty.
Gladys Swager
Terry Cross
> On Nov 6, 11:28�am, "I" wrote:
>
> Mark, I know you have posted this. You hate any one who
> says that the Bible contains God's truth for us.
>
> > You might be a Christian Fundamentalist if:
> > � a.. You complain when Christians aren't allowed to practice religion in
> > other countries, but you go berzerker when someone tries to set up a Mosque
> > in your neighbourhood.
>
> I did not go beseerck when a mosque was established some distence from
> my home, for the simple reason I did not know such was happening.
> I have spoken on Talk-Back Radio explaining why some Muslim ideas are
> not correct. I have posted in these newsgroups on the same issue.
> Until other evidence can be presented I will continue to believe that
> Muhammed used the Biblical scriptures to impose his own religion on
> the peoples of his area.
>
> > � b.. You consider a single prayer that was 'answered' during your life time
> > as a high success rate.
>
> The succes rate is not an issue. Prayer is speaking with God.
> Sometimes He answers in the affirmative, sometimes in the negative and
> sometimes He says wait a while.
> God makes the the decision as to the answer.
>
> > � c.. You constantly challenge the work of respected scientists who
Ah, what a Tory you are! How dare ANYone challenge "respected"
scientists. But hey, if their work is challenged, you have to
conclude their work is not that well "respected."
Unless of course we challenge their work respectfully. Would that be
OK? No? You mean, if they are respected by others, their work must
go unchallenged?
Doesn't that strike you as a little - unscientific?
Maybe you would be happier in the court of Pope Urban VIII, who was
dead certain that the opinions of "respected" scientists (like
Aristotle) should not be challenged.
TCross
swa...@ozemail.com.au
scientific research on the issue of Evolution. It is a matter of
scientists challenging scientists. I have only given the research and
studies of those scientists who challenge the Darwinian Evolutionists.
I believe that they have a right to be heard.
The arrogance is on the part of those who say that their ideas, and
only their ideas, should be given.
> Maybe you would be happier in the court of Pope Urban VIII, who was
> dead certain that the opinions of "respected" scientists (like
> Aristotle) should not be challenged.
>
With the record of the Popes through the centuries of imposing
heresies and traditions that are not in the New Testament scriptures
on the Christian faith I would not be happy in any court of any pope,
although I do wonder if what is posted in newsgroups against that
corrupt system does become recorded in the Vatican Papal archives. It
is a fact that that church will use the ideas of others to 'further
its own nest', even changed somewhat by means of power dynamics to
avoid plagiarism charges. That happens in many organisations, I've
learnt in my older years. .
In my previous posting I did not explain that the Shekinah Glory was
the presence of God.
>
Gladys Swager
Terry Cross
Please notice, Gadys, that all my retorts followed statements by Mark
T (so-called "I"). I should have put this notice in my post. I have
no difference with you, but Mark is a compulsive anti-Christian. We
all have our crosses to bear, but Mark seems to carry a crucifix only
for the purpose of finding someone to nail on it. :-)
TCross
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> s...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 8:28 am, Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > I am not the one who is challenging 'respected scientists' from my own
> > scientific research on the issue of Evolution. It is a matter of
> > scientists challenging scientists. I have only given the research and
> > studies of those scientists who challenge the Darwinian Evolutionists.
> > I believe that they have a right to be heard.
> > The arrogance is on the part of those who say that their ideas, and
> > only their ideas, should be given.
>
> > > Maybe you would be happier in the court of Pope Urban VIII, who was
> > > dead certain that the opinions of "respected" scientists (like
> > > Aristotle) should not be challenged.
>
> > With the record of the Popes through the centuries of imposing
> > heresies and traditions that are not in the New Testament scriptures
> > on the Christian faith I would not be happy in any court of any pope,
> > although I do wonder if what is posted in newsgroups against that
> > corrupt system does become recorded in the Vatican Papal archives. It
> > is a fact that that church will use the ideas of others to 'further
> > its own nest', even changed somewhat by means of power dynamics to
> > avoid plagiarism charges. That happens in many organisations, I've
> > learnt in my older years. .
>
> > In my previous posting I did not explain that the Shekinah Glory was
> > the presence of God.
>
> T (so-called "I"). I should have put this notice in my post. I have
> no difference with you, but Mark is a compulsive anti-Christian. We
> all have our crosses to bear, but Mark seems to carry a crucifix only
> for the purpose of finding someone to nail on it. :-)
>
comments.
I have long since come to the conclusion that Mark occupies himself in
this newsgroup primarily to give an adverstisement for his own
websites to attack those who accept Biblical Christianity.
Gladys Swager
I
> attack those who accept Biblical Christianity.
"Fundamentalism is demonic, and can only be met with the sword, or at least
a very vitriolic pen." - Peter Cameron
Terry Cross
Mark T wrote:
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > attack those who accept Biblical Christianity.
>
>
> "Fundamentalism is demonic, and can only be met with the sword, or at least
> a very vitriolic pen." - Peter Cameron
How like one of those nasty clever birds. Whatever it hears, whatever
it means, whenever it's moved to repeat and repeat and repeat and
repeat until you put a bag over its cage.
TCross
Tom
"s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote
Mark, your attitude and the attitude of those who find fault with the
Bible do so from 'man's so-called wisdom', as you desire to put
yourselves in control, above God Almighty.
Dearest Gladys,
I suspect that you have quite a bit more age, and even a Grey crown of
glory, quite beyond mine, and all I can say is that Mark does not make
remarks in good faith. If you dare to contradict him, he will come down upon
you like the fiercest demons from the Abyss, and irrespective of your wisdom
and age, and the respect that it demands, attack you like a dingo attacks
the carcass of a big fat wombat.
The third rule of usenet is that you do not feed the trolls. Mark is the
Troldkonig, or King of the Trolls.
Respectfully yours,
Tom
Tom
"s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote
Mark, your attitude and the attitude of those who find fault with the
Bible do so from 'man's so-called wisdom', as you desire to put
yourselves in control, above God Almighty.
Dearest Gladys,
Aaron
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Mark T wrote:
>> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > attack those who accept Biblical Christianity.
Strange term since the Bible predates the non-Jewish acceptance of
Messiah; so, what we think of as "Christianity" today is not seen in
the Bible.
>>
>>
>> "Fundamentalism is demonic, and can only be met with the sword, or at least
>> a very vitriolic pen." - Peter Cameron
>
>How like one of those nasty clever birds. Whatever it hears, whatever
>it means, whenever it's moved to repeat and repeat and repeat and
>repeat until you put a bag over its cage.
>
>TCross
As a matter of disambiguation:
In these NGs, we frequently see "fundamentalism" used as if it means
"Christian Fundamentalism." One is a description that can be used to
describe sects of different religions the other is purely Christian.
"Fundamentalism" is a general word that refers to a deep and
totalistic commitment to a belief usually a religious belief.
Basically it is fanaticism which is usually the result of repressed
doubts.
"Fundamentalist Christianity," also known as "Christian
Fundamentalism" is a belief in a fundamental set of Christian beliefs:
the inerrancy of the Bible, divine revelation of the entire Bible,
Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, and usually literal
interpretation of the Bible. The original "Christian Fundamentalism"
had very extreme view such as prohibitions against dancing, watching
movies, the use of alchohol and tobacco, wearing modern fashions
(which were seen as gender indistinct), men allowing their hair to
grow long, and other restrictions that were less universally accepted.
Most Chrisatians who identify themselves as "Fundamentalist" today are
more "neo-Fundamentalist" in that they allow more interaction with
modern society.
It should be noted that "Fundamentalist Christianity" in either its
modern form or original form has certain problems.
1 Belief in both the inerrancy of the Bible, divine revelation of the
entire Bible at the same time causes a logical impasse. First
Corinthians 7:25-39 is prefaced with Rabbi Shaul (Paul) saying that
this passage was not revealed to him by God. So either the Bible is
inerrant, and thise was not divinely inspired, or there is an error
and it was divinely inspired. Since divine revelation would preclude
error, we can only believe that this was not divinely revealed but
accurately prtrays the manmade opinion of the rabbi.
Sola Scriptura is also problematic. Sola Scriptura is the doctrine
that only the Bible can be used for establishing doctrine. This was
invented as a justification for discrading those manmade Roman
Catholic dcrees that the Protestants wanted to discard. Of course,
since they kept many nonbiblical Roman Catholic customs, this is a bit
hypocritical. It becomes even more problematic as Deuteronomy
commands that animals slaughtered for food be killed in accordance
with a proceddure that God says that He has given but which appears
only in the Mishna (the Oral Law) which is not part of the Bible. In
Matthew, Messiah criticizes some Pharisees for violating the Oral Law
as it is recorded in the Talmud by making their tzitziyot long and
making their tfillin broad (not cube shaped). Of course, in this
case, it can be pointed out that Christians ignore the Scripture as
well, ignoring God's Commandmetns of tzitzit and tfillin. In
Ephesians, Rabbi Shaul also asserts that Messiah sanctified preforming
the Immersion as done in accordance with the Oral Word yet most
Christians don't even know that Baptism is a Jewish religious practice
or how it is done.
Literal interpretation is also a problem because the Hebrew text
contains many phrases that are not meant to be understood literally
and literary devices that are not found in Western literature. So
what it literal to a Jew reading the Hebrew is not even seen by a
Christian reading an English translation. The Ancient Greek texts
contain many Hebrew literary devices that make literal translation
difficult as well. These Greek texts also contain many misused Greek
words that were approximations of Hebrew words, and words that seem to
be made up just to translate Judaic ideas fo which there were no Greek
words. While scholars debate the original language of these books,
the Judaic influence is unmistakeable. Some of the "greek-like" words
used in the ancient Greek texts have no clear definition, so
translators fill in with words that supports their personal theology.
This makes literal translation immpossible and without literal
translation, there is no basis for the belief in infallable literal
interpretation. There are also passages where traditional English
translations simply disagree with ancient Greek texts. Some passages
in the OT are at odds with a literal translation of the Original
Hebrew, but Fundamentalist Christians insist on literally interpreting
the translation rather than the Hebrew. So, the entire approach to
literal interpretation used by Fundamentalist Christianity is not
usable for any honest study of the Bible. Worse yet, the
Fundamentalist Christian approach to the Bible has led to extreme
devotion to anti-biblical beliefs that have cause people to turn away
from Theism altogether rather than simply reject Fundamentalist
Christianity.
I
> Mark is the Troldkonig, or King of the Trolls.
Tom is a Fundamentalist sociopath with a gun fetish.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fundamentalists seem aimed at making themselves feel better by placing all
negative and destructive emotions in people with different beliefs, and
enjoying the golden glow of self-justification that results. ... You know
that simile: 'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.' ... the
Inquisition did largely miss the point of 'Love Thy Neighbour', didn't they?
Wasn't burning heretics 'worse' than being tolerant towards them? ...
from "LIFE ...and how to survive it" - Robin Skinner & John Cleese (Methuen;
London:1993) p. 287
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Peter Cameron's "Fundamentalism and Freedom" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1995.)
p. 7 ff
To reduce that to convenient headings, the Fundamentalist is uncomfortable
with freedom, truth, and dissent and very much at home with authority,
obedience, and conformity. But the most striking feature of the
Fundamentalist is that, whether he is conscious of it or not, his approach
results in the total contradiction of what he professes to believe.
They will be fearful in the face of any challenge to their security and
brutal in their reaction; they will seek to bolster their security by
persuading others of its validity.; and those others will be persuaded
because of their own increasing sense of insecurity in the modern world.
...the key concepts being security and power ...the Fundamentalist is
usually both a bully and a coward. ...the potential bully in them responds
eagerly to authority and looks forward to the time when they will exercise
that authority; while the most bullying of the bosses tend to shelter behind
the more cowardly and get them to do their dirty work for them.
...security for the convert ... The Fundamentalist deals in absolutes. ...
"We have the answer. The answer is to ask no questions. Everything is set
out in the Holy Book. Simply obey and you will find happiness - in other
words, security."
... Argument, debate, the possibility that they might be wrong - these are
not on the agenda. In any other walk of life they would be regarded as
unhinged. Very few of them have ever been exposed to the simplest form of
biblical criticism, yet they feel qualified to tell people who have spent
half a lifetime on the subject that they are barking up he wrong tree. It's
rather like witchdoctor medicine confronted with real medicine. The
primitive reaction is one of fear, suspicion and hostility - out with the
spears and shields. And the witchdoctors themselves, of course, have vested
interests to protect: their positions of control and authority. naturally
they resist.
... Fundamentalists need an enemy; an enemy both gives them their own
identity and unites them. ...they stand for nothing positive at all - simply
obedience to rules and the condemnation of those who break them.
... Fundamentalists are impervious to rational argument. They are convinced
that they are God's chosen instrument and that their victims are agents of
the devil. They need to be convinced of this, because it is what gives them
purpose to their lives. Fundamentalism's real purpose is not to save but to
condemn: for the dissenter or for the outsider it is dangerous almost be
definition.
... the danger is manifested in the methods used. No holds are barred. All
is fair in holy war. The end always justifies the means. ...appropriate is
the Old Testament norm, according to which the apostate who deviates from
true doctrine contaminates the people of God and must be weeded out and
burned.
The pattern therefore is one of private hearings, and stacked committees,
and kangaroo courts, or - more simply and more devastatingly - a
behind-the-scenes verdict and a sentence of ostracism with no possibility of
appeal.
... a closed system of rules and obedience, and authoritarian control, and
rigid conformity. Instead of a religion of love which proceeds by
invitation, it is a religion of fear which proceeds by intimidation.
... Fundamentalism is wrong, it is a distortion of Christianity, in fact it
is a complete contradiction. ... it masquerades as the truth. Christianity
is not a matter of obeying commandments, or of obtaining salvation through
the acceptance of an authoritative holy book, or of believing in certain
propositions like a physical resurrection. the irony is that what
Fundamentalist Christianity teaches is exactly the sort of thing which the
founder of Christianity came to warn people about.
...Fundamentalism ... thrives on protective stupidity.
... fear in the face of any challenge to the status quo; indoctrination in
order to prevent dissent, and brutality in suppressing dissent; the
exaltation of authority and rules and control and manipulation; and
certainty on the part of those in charge that they possess the truth, hand
in hand with an actual perversion of the truth into mere expediency.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
<I snippeth>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote
> Mark, your attitude and the attitude of those who find fault with the
> Bible do so from 'man's so-called wisdom', as you desire to put
> yourselves in control, above God Almighty.
>
> Dearest Gladys,
> I suspect that you have quite a bit more age, and even a Grey crown of
> glory, quite beyond mine,
It is not completely grey, but it is far from the 'fairest of the
fair' of my young years.
> and all I can say is that Mark does not make
> remarks in good faith. If you dare to contradict him, he will come down upon
> you like the fiercest demons from the Abyss, and irrespective of your wisdom
> and age, and the respect that it demands,
Age only deserves respect if through the years we have gained
understandings from our faith and experiences that are of benefit to
others.
attack you like a dingo attacks the carcass of a big fat wombat.
He condemns those who say there are basic truths in the Christian
faith, while he himself is most dogmatic should his understandings
(fundamentals) be criticised.
I do have some understandings of why he has taken the position he has
because of reactions of his to a number of situations in the past.
> The third rule of usenet is that you do not feed the trolls. Mark is the
> Troldkonig, or King of the Trolls. Respectfully yours, Tom
I am in error on this point. Although I do spend quite some time and a
lot of thought and prayer in researching for my postings to these
newsgroups I have not checked the meaning of 'Troll'. Must do that
after I have posted this one to you.
Because of the adverse connotations that have been given to the word
'Fundamentals' I prefer the term I used, (even before any knowledge of
the
'f-word'), which is 'Basic concepts'.
However, there are times when that 'f-word' must be used because of
the history of that movement from just prior to or/& after the early
1900's.
Five Fundamentals of the Christian faith
www.martygrant.com.christian/fundamentals.htm
for your reading and comments if you choose.
Gladys Swager
I
> Five Fundamentals of the Christian faith
There are NO fundamentals of Christianity. Neither Tom, Vera, Gladys nor
Chucky can answer the following ..........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are, however, certain problems associated with any such attempt to lay
down what is essential to the faith or that by which, in a historic phrase
the Church stands or falls.
First of all there is the practical question of who decides. In a period
where there is a universal Church, when everyone is a Christian and the only
dispute is whether they are orthodox or heretical, it is relatively simple:
the Church decides. But what happens when the Church begins to fragment into
various denominations, and the 'Fundamentals' of a particular denomination
are different from those of another, each claiming to be orthodox? What
happens when the Fundamentals of a Christian movement which claims to be
impeccably conservative are different from the Fundamentals of early
Christian orthodoxy? Is there not, for example, something odd in the fact
that Fundamentalism's five Fundamentals do not include everything in the
classic Christian creeds?
And that leads to the second problem, a logical problem. What is the status
of those elements of Christianity which are not included in the
Fundamentals? Take the residue of the Apostles' Creed which is not covered
by the five Fundamentals of Fundamentalism: for example, the creation and
the Holy Spirit. Does their absence from the Fundamentalists' creed imply
that they are unimportant, optional, mistaken? I suppose the Fundamentalists
would argue that their insistence on the infallibility of the Bible takes
care of the creation and the Holy Spirit, but in that case why single out
the resurrection and the virgin birth for special mention? Is it in fact
possible for any movement claiming to stand in the tradition of orthodoxy to
make any pronouncement at all on the Fundamentals of the faith, which does
not simply repeat previous such pronouncements? In other words, can
something which has once been stated to be fundamental to Christianity ever
cease to be fundamental?
The third problem is partly logical and partly psychological. The
implication of the Fundamentalists' Fundamentals is that you must believe
them before you can claim to be a Christian. But how can you be required to
believe anything? Does the formulation 'You must believe' make any sense at
all? We do not in fact decide what to believe or if we do we are misusing
the word 'believe'. The content of a belief constrains us to believe. To
that extent it does make sense to say I must believe it: I must believe it
because it's true. But I cannot be compelled to believe anything by external
authority, not just because l might wish to resist that authority but
because belief cannot be coerced.Now if the Fundamentalists say that they
are simply stating in their Fundamentals what is true, and that is why I
must believe them, the question naturally arises: what about all the other
aspects of Christianity, the non-Fundamentals? Are they less true, or
untrue? It seems that any statement of what must be believed can only apply
to the whole of Christianity, that is, to the whole truth. Once the
Fundamentalists attempt to concentrate on 'Fundamentals' then either they
become logically incoherent or they are in fact trying to force us to
believe, which is impossible.
But the most important objection to Christian Fundamentals, or essentials
of the faith, is a theological objection: the whole idea of an irreducible
minimum of belief is contrary to the spirit of Christianity. It is not easy
to explain why, except obliquely - by saying, for example, in Kierkegaard's
arresting simile, that it is like trying to paint the god Mars in the armour
which made him invisible. I was once asked on a radio program to sum up in
one sentence the message of Jesus. I racked my brains feverishly for a
minute, but then I thought, 'No, why should I play this game?' if Jesus
could have said in a single sentence why he had come, then it would have
been quite unnecessary for him to come at all - except in order to utter
that sentence.
...
You cannot generalise or abstract certain principles or 'Fundamentals' and
attach some saving significance to them, or make of them a test of
allegiance and put everything else on the level of non-essential or optional
or whatever. Of course it is entirely understandable why people should want
to do so. As Dostoevsky's Grand lnquisitor saw so clearly, people don't want
freedom, they want to be told what to do. And psychologically there is
nothing more satisfying than a rule book, or a party manifesto, which tells
you simply and categorically just what you should do and what you should
believe. And that psychological need is so great that you remain blind to
the fact that a religion which wants to - from rules and exclusiveness and
seeing God as a possession, and to open you up instead to the absolute love
of God is immediately involved in a hopeless contradiction whenever it
allows itself to be reduced to certain essentials or 'Fundamentals'....
And in that sense Christianity is incommunicable, in any direct sense. It
doesn't proceed on the analogy base camp in mountaineering, and 'teach'
certain minimum beliefs which you can then build upon for the purposes of
your individual attempts to climb higher, but below which you need never go
in refreshing yourself and taking stock. Much more apt is the anaIogy of the
pilgrimage or voyage, which is different for everyone, and on which you
never come back to the same point.It is your pilgrimage, your voyage, and no
one else has ever taken exactly the same route. You can get advice from
other people, hints on the sort of things that might happen to you and the
sort of things you might do; but no one can travel with you, far less
instead of you. And dictating to you the Fundamentals of Christianity,
telling you what you must believe js precisely trying to travel with you or
instead of you.And, as if to prove a point, it is on this question of the
incommunicability of Christianity that the Fundamentalists really become
angry. They quoted a sermon of mine on the subject at one stage in the
heresy proceedings, without comment, as if I was condemned out of my own
mouth. Because it is here that we are fundamentally opposed. The whole basis
of their religion is that it offers salvation through acceptance of
propositions about God and Jesus Christ-the Fundamentals of Christianity.
And their whole purpose as Christians is to persuade themselves and others
to accept these propositions, to be converted. But that is precisely why
they will never be converted. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus offers freedom to
the Jews but in reply they deny that hey have ever been slaves. You cannot
liberate those who think they are free. You cannot convert a Fundamentalist.
From Peter Cameron's "Fundamentalism and Freedom" (Doubleday, Sydney: 1995)
pp 36 -42
Terry Cross
> "Tom" <To...@home.con> wrote:
>
> > Mark is the Troldkonig, or King of the Trolls.
>
>
> Tom is a Fundamentalist sociopath with a gun fetish.
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Fundamentalists seem aimed at making themselves feel better by placing all
> negative and destructive emotions in people with different beliefs, and
> enjoying the golden glow of self-justification that results. ... You know
> that simile: 'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.' ... the
> Inquisition did largely miss the point of 'Love Thy Neighbour', didn't they?
> Wasn't burning heretics 'worse' than being tolerant towards them? ...
>
> from "LIFE ...and how to survive it" - Robin Skinner & John Cleese (Methuen;
> London:1993) p. 287
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From Peter Cameron's "Fundamentalism and Freedom" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1995.)
> p. 7 ff
>
> To reduce that to convenient headings, the Fundamentalist is uncomfortable
> with freedom, truth, and dissent and very much at home with authority,
> obedience, and conformity. But the most striking feature of the
> Fundamentalist is that, whether he is conscious of it or not, his approach
> results in the total contra�diction of what he professes to believe.
Most importantly, a Fundamentalist never washes his socks. This is an
offense to free-thinking idiots everywhere.
Also important, notice that the Fundamentalist is always a male.
Explanations vary, and Peter Cameron does not delve into this more
mysterious aspect of the subject, but the fact remains (according to
Peter Cameron) all Fundamentalists are male.
We also must ponder how Fundamentalists reproduce. Fission?
Budding? Parthogenesis? This aspect of the subject, though
fascinating to Fundamentologists (students of the fundaments of life),
will have to wait until a government study with big bucks can address
the problem. For now, science just does not know.
TCross
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > Five Fundamentals of the Christian faith
>
disagreements.
> There are NO fundamentals of Christianity.
> Neither Tom, Vera, Gladys nor Chucky can answer the following ..........
>
We can never answer to your satisfaction because your views are so
different to those who accept the Biblical teaching.
The basic Biblical fundamental (essential) =
John 3 : 16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but shall have
everlasting life.
Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
For by grace are (we) saved, through faith
and that not of (our)selves: it is the gift of God;
Not of works lest any (one) should boast.
and other such verses.
I can't see that a person has any claim to a Christian faith if those
verses
are not its foundation.
If any person who holds those verses as essential but doesn't go on in
good works then that person is described in 1 Corinthians 3 : 13, 15
v. 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest; for the day shall
declare it,
because it shall be revealed by fire;
and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is;
v. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss,
but he himself shall be saved, yet so by fire.
And if there are any complaints that females are not mentioned
the fact is the female is included with the male.
The problem has been in the Christian faith that certain leaders have
specified what the good works should be in religious observances,
doctrines (heresies and traditions) and works of charity towards
others.
And in that teaching the leaders are akin to the apostles
and the laity (as the non-leaders have come to be called)
are akin to the peasants who listened to Jesus Christ and His
apostles.
My readings indicate that Christianity was developing reasonably until
310AD and from that date additions were made to the Christian teaching
by the Church at Rome until in the late 1300's John Wycliffe in
England and in the early 1500's Martin Luther began their protests.
(No mass media in those days)
And others followed with different emphases; changed Biblical versions
and added doctrines as they set up their teaching groups.
What chance (probability ratings) is there of sorting it all out?
I haven't the answer for I am aware that indoctrinations die hard. .
Gladys Swager
I
> There are NO fundamentals of Christianity.
> Neither Tom, Vera, Gladys nor Chucky can answer the following ..........
>
> We can never answer to your satisfaction because your views are so
> different to those who accept the Biblical teaching.
Your "biblical teaching" is FUNDAMENTALISM which was invented by men (sexism
intended) in 1895.
Jesus did not believe your "biblical teaching".
LEARN HSTORY ..................
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
c. 4 BC Birth of Jesus
...
70 Fall of Jerusalem
...
202 Christians persecuted under Septimus Severus
211 Christians tolerated under Emperor Antoninus Caracalla
222 Christians favored Emperor Alexander Severus
230 Origen's On First Principles
235 Christians persecuted under Emperor Maximin the Thracian
238 Christians tolerated under Emperor Gordian III
244 Christians favored under Emperor Philip the Arabian
251 Cyprian's Unity of the Catholic Church
254 Death of Origen
303 Diocletian orders burning of Christian books and churches
312 Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity
313 Edict of Milan establishes official toleration of Christianity
325 Council of Nicea
336 Death of Constantine
354 Birth of Augustine
367 Athanasius lists all 27 books of NT
379 Basil the Great dies
380 Christianity made official religion of Roman Empire
381 Council of Constantinople
386 Augustine converts to Christianity
389 Gregory of Nazianzus dies
395 Gregory of Nyssa dies
c. 400 Jerome's Vulgate (translation of the Greek Bible into Latin)
407 John Chrysostom dies
411 Council of Carthage condemns Donatists
417 Pope Innocent I condemns Pelagianism
420 Death of Jerome
430 Death of Augustine
431 Council of Ephesus
451 Council of Chalcedon
787 Second Council of Nicea
950 Olga of Russia converts to Christianity
1054 Great Schism between East and West
1093 Anselm becomes Archbishop of Canterbury
1095 Council of Clermont: Pope Urban II proclaims First Crusade
1098 Crusaders take Antioch from Turks
1099 Crusaders recapture Jerusalem from Turks
1122 Concordat of Worms
1141 Peter Abelard condemned
1144 Fall of Edessa (crusader state)
1187 Fall of Jerusalem to Turks
1215 Fourth Lateran Council
1309 "Babylonian Captivity" (until 1377)
1337 Hundred Years' War (until 1453)
1378 Great Western Schism (until 1423)
1409 Council of Pisa
1413-14 Lollard rebellion
1415 Council of Constance. Martyrdom of Jan Hus.
1420 Crusade against Hussites
1431 Joan of Arc martyred
1431-49 Council of Basel
1438-45 Council of Ferrara-Florence
1453 Fall of Constantinople to Turks
1478 Spanish Inquisition founded by Ferdinand and Isabella
1483 Birth of Martin Luther
1492 Expulsion of Jews from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella
1505 Luther becomes a monk
#############################
PROTESTANTISM BEGINS
#############################
1517 Luther posts 95 Theses
1521 Luther excommunicated
1530 Augsburg Confession
1534 Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy
1536 Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion
1541 Colloquy of Regensburg
1555 Peace of Augsburg
1559 Elizabeth I's Act of Uniformity
1590 Michelangelo completes the dome of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome
1609 Baptist Church founded by John Smyth
1611 King James (Authorized) Version of the Bible produced
1729 Beginnings of Methodism, led by John Wesley
1738 John Wesley feels his "heart strangely warmed" during a reading
of Luther's preface to Romans on Aldersgate Street in London
1775 American Wars of Independence begin
1783 America wins independence from Britain
1793 Louis XVI executed
1797 Second Awakening begins
1798 Pope Pius VI is prisoner of France
1799 Schleiermacher writes Speeches
1801 Cane Ridge Revival
1804 Napoleon becomes emperor
1807 Hegel writes Phenomenology of the Spirit
1808 French occupy Rome
1810 Mexico wins independence
1812-14 British-American War
1814 Reorganization of the Jesuits
1816 American Bible Society established
1822 Schleiermacher writes Christian Faith
1826 American Society for the Promotion of Temperance founded
1830 Joseph Smith produces Book of Mormon
1834 Spanish Inquisition officially abolished
1838 Abolition of slavery in the British Caribbean
1841 David Livingstone to Africa
1845 Methodists and Baptists split over the issue of slavery
1846 Pope Pius IX (until 1878)
1854 Dogma of Immaculate Conception of Mary
1859 Darwin publishes Origin of the Species
1861-65 American Civil War
1861 Presbyterians divide over the issue of slavery
1869 First Vatican Council
1870 Dogma of Papal Infallibility
1872 Moody begins preaching
1875 Mary Baker Eddy writes Science and Health
1882 Neitzsche declares "God is dead"
#######################################
FUNDAMENTALISM BEGINS
######################################
1895 Five Fundamentals
1900 Freud's Interpretation of Dreams
1906 Azusa Street revival
1908 Henry Ford introduces the Model T
1910 World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh
1914 Assemblies of God founded
1914-18 World War I
1917 Russian Revolution
1919 Prohibition passed into law
1925 Scopes "Monkey" trial
1932 Barth's Church Dogmatics
1939 Hitler invades Poland and sparks WWI
1945 Nag Hammadi Library discovered in Egypt;
US drops atomic bombs on Japan
1947 India wins independence from U.K.
1948 World Council of Churches founded
1950 Papal encyclical Humani generis
1956 First issue of Christianity Today
1960 Birth control pill approved by FDA
1961 First human in space
Papal encyclical Mater et Magistra
1962-65 Second Vatican Council
1963 MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech
1968 Papal encyclical Humanae vitae
1969 First man on the moon
1971 Intel introduces the microprocessor
1973 Roe vs. Wade
1987-88 Televangelist scandals
1989 First woman ordained in an apostolic-succession church (the
Protestant Episcopal church). Fall of the Berlin Wall.
1997 Birth of the internet
from http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/timeline.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lynx
lynx
quotes for today' list. I like the way that you can sum things up in a
nutshell. Chuck is good at that too. I sometimes don't see the forest
for the trees.
Sean McHugh
Yeah, he's really sharp. Get him to explain to you the trumpet and the
sky splitting.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
>
> Your "biblical teaching" is FUNDAMENTALISM which was invented by men
> (sexism intended) in 1895.
>
> Jesus did not believe your "biblical teaching".
The New Testament is all about Jesus. When did Jesus not believe the
teaching that is in the New Testament?
> LEARN HISTORY ..................
>
Your history is not relevant to this issue.
Your history consists of the actions of mostly men, some women.
Some followed the basic concepts of the teachings of Jesus and the
apostles and Paul who were appointed by Jesus 'to go into all the
world and preach the gospel (good news) to every (one)'. But others
did not.
Fundamentalism as it was set out in 1895 was to bring Christians back
to the basic concepts of the teachings of Jesus Christ. It was a
movement against the inroads of Liberalism that was giving teachings
contrary to the Biblical teachings.
Salvation is the free gift of God through faith in Jesus Christ.
Do you accept or reject that?
In your opinion, how do you think that those who were involved in the
start of the Fundalmentalist movement adopted ideas contrary to the
gospel of Jesus Christ?
Which denominations today do you think fulfil the gospel of Jesus
Christ in their teaching and practices? Give reasons for your
choice.
Which denominations fail to fulfill the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Gladys Swager
Terry Cross
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 16:55:18 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross
>
That is a very long way from saying it is "demonic."
TCross
Tom
"lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:ip9Rk.12915$sc2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Pope Morkie...and there are no limits to the ferocity of his attacks. He has
no common decency, so he frequently winds up getting under people's skin;
which results in ocassional flinging of masses of pooh at him....
I
>> Your "biblical teaching" is FUNDAMENTALISM which was invented >> by men
>> (sexism intended) in 1895.
>> Jesus did not believe your "biblical teaching".
...
> When did Jesus not believe the teaching that is in the New Testament?
Jesus could not believe the teachng in, for example,John's, because BOTH the
teaching and the book weren't invented till 90 - 120 CE.
> In your opinion, how do you think that those who were involved in the
> start of the Fundalmentalist movement adopted ideas contrary to the
> gospel of Jesus Christ?
They DON'T practise the ORIGINAL gospel as described in the FIRST gospel
ever written - Mark's gospel (65 - 80 CE). This was repeated in Matthew's
gospel (80 -100 CE). The gospel was mangled in John's gospel (90 - 120 CE.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GOOD NEWS - GOSPEL
MARK'S GOSPEL (ending at Mark 16:8)
1:15; 4:11; 4:14; 6:12; 9:1;13:9-10 all describe the gospel / good news as
announcing that the kingdom [realm] of God is here so one must turn away
from one's sins. Nothing more! Count how many times Jesus says the "the
kingdom of God is like" in Mark's gospel!
MATTHEW'S GOSPEL
4:17; 4:23; 5:19; 6:33; 7:21; 9:35; 10:7; 11:12; 12:28; 13:11; 13:19; 13:38;
13;52; 18:2; 19:23; 21:31 21:43; 23:13; 24:34; 25:34 ff; 26:13; describe the
gospel / good news as announcing that the kingdom [realm] of heaven is here
so one must turn away from one's sins. Nothing more! (Matthew prefers
'kingdom of heaven" to "kingdom of God") Count how many times Jesus says
the "the kingdom of heaven is like" in Matthew's gospel!
I
> pooh
Tom's whole fundamentalist position is about HATE and INSULT.
I find Tom's position puzzling. Tom claims to have a very high IQ and be
learned in all maner of subjects but is UNABLE to provide one lucid
statement without an insult.
Tom can only insult and NEVER DEBATE.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fundamentalists seem aimed at making themselves feel better by placing all
negative and destructive emotions in people with different beliefs, and
enjoying the golden glow of self-justification that results. ... You know
that simile: 'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.' ... the
Inquisition did largely miss the point of 'Love Thy Neighbour', didn't they?
Wasn't burning heretics 'worse' than being tolerant towards them? ...
from "LIFE ...and how to survive it" - Robin Skinner & John Cleese (Methuen;
London:1993) p. 287
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'VE ISSUED A CHALLENGE THAT TOM CANNOT NEGATE.
IF
TOM cannot prove my proof incorrect
THEN
it must be correct by default.
My proof is based upon ..............
#####################################################
1. GOD'S EXISTENCE
GOD DOES NOT EXIST
None of the proofs of God's existence work.
Demonstrated:
- http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pages/proofs.htm
- Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion"
Proof of God's non-existence
Demonstrated:
- Jean Paul-Sartre "On Being And Nothingness"
WHAT IS GOD?
"Ground of all being"
Demonstrated:
- Paul Tillich "The Courage To Be"
- John A T Robinson "Honest To God"
- Karen Armstrong "A History Of God"
- John Shelby Spong "Why Christianity Must Change Or Die", "A New
Christianity For A New World"
2. THE BIBLE
BIBLE CONSTRUCTION
The bible is an entirely man-made construction that has been edited and
contains some forgeries.
Demonstrated:
- Funk, Hoover & The Jesus Seminar "The Five Gopels"
- John Shelby Spong "Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism"
- John Shelby Spong "Jesus For The Non-Religious"
EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Early Christianity was a sect of Judaism whose adherents belived in Jesus as
the human messiah anointed by God
Demonstrated:
- John Dominic Crossan "The Birth Of Christianity"
- Funk, Hoover & The Jesus Seminar "The Five Gopels"
3. JESUS OF NAZARETH
JESUS IS NOT GOD
Jesus as a human anointed by God
Demonstrated:
- Robert W. Funk "Honest To Jesus"
- John Dominic Crossan "Jesus: A revolutionary Biography", "The Historical
Jesus"
- John Domic Crossan & Jonathan L. Reed "Excavating Jesus: Beneth the
Stones, Behind The Texts"
- John Shelby Spong "Jesus For The Non-Religious"
- Funk, Hoover & The Jesus Seminar "The Five Gopels"
4. METHODOLOGY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"SEVEN PILLARS" OF CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARLY WISDOM
1. The distinction between the historical Jesus (uncovered by historical
excavation) and the Christ of Faith (encapsulated in the first creeds).
2. Recognising that the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew & Luke) are much
closer to the historical Jesus than John's gospel which presents a
"spiritual" Jesus.
3. The recogintion of Mark's gospel as prior to Matthew's and Luke's and
their basis.
4. The identification of the hypothetical source Q as the explanation for
the "double tradition" (The material Matthew & Luke have in common beyond
their dependence on Mark.)
5. The liberation of the non-eschatological Jesus of the aphorisms and
parables from Albert Schweitzer's eschatological Jesus,
6. Recognition of the fundamental contrast between the oral culture (ijn
which Jesus was at home) and a print culture (like our own). (The Jesus whom
historians seek will be found in those fragments of tradition that bear the
imprint of orality: short, provocative, memorable, oft-repeated phrases,
sentences, and stories.)
7. The reversal regarding who bears the burden of proof. The gospels are now
assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is embellished by
mythic elements that express the church's faith in him, and by plausible
fictions that enhance the telling of the gospel for 1st century listeners
who knew about divine men and miracle woprkers first hand. Supposedly
historical elements in these narratives must be proved so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TWO DIFFERING PORTRAITS OF JESUS:
1. The Synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew & Luke)
- Jesus speaks in parables and aphorisms
- God's imperial rule is the theme of Jesus' teaching
2. John's Gospel
- Jesus speaks in long, involved discourses
- Jesus is the theme of his own teaching
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE FOUR SOURCE THEORY:
Matthew used Mark, Q, and is own special source called M.
Luke also used Mark and Q, but had another source called L, which Mathew did
not have.
The material in M & L probably comes from oral tradition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RULES OF WRITTEN EVIDENCE:
CLUSTERING & CONTEXTING
1. The evangelists frequently group sayings and parables in clusters and
complexes that did not originate with Jesus.
2. The evangelists frequently relocate sayings and parables or invent new
narrative contexts for them.
REVISION & COMMENTARY
3. The evangelists frequently expand sayings or parables, or provide them
with an interpretive overlay or comment.
4. The evangelists often revide or edit sayigs to make them conform to their
own individual language, styleor viewpoint.
FALSE ATTRIBUTION
5. Words borrowed from the fund of common lore or the Greek sriptures are
often put on the lips of Jesus.
DIFFICULT SAYINGS
6. Hard sayings are frequently softened in the process of transmission to
adapt them to the conditions of daily living.
7. Variations in difficult sayings often betray the struggle of the early
Christian community to interpret or adpat sayings to its own situation.
CHRISTIANISING JESUS
8. Sayings and parables expressed in "Christian" language are rthe creation
of the evangelists or their Christian predecessors.
9. Saying or parables that contrast with the language or viewpoint of the
gospel in which they are embedded reflect older tradition (but not
necessarily tradition that originated with Jesus).
10. The Christian community develops apologetic statements to defend its
claims and sometimes attributes such statements to Jesus.
11. Sayings and narratives that reflect knowledge of events that took place
after Jesus' death are the creation of the evangelists or rthe oral
tradition before them.
FROM THE GOSPELS TO JESUS: THE RULES OF ORAL EVIDENCE
12. Only sayings and parables that can be traced back to the oral period,
30-50 CE, can possibly have orginated with Jesus.
13. Sayings or parables that are attested to in two or more independent
sources are older than the sources in which they are embedded.
14. Sayings or parables that are attested in two different contexts probably
circuklated independently at an earlier time.
15. The same or similar content attested in two or more different forms has
had a life of its own and therefore may stem from old tradition.
16. Unwritten tradition that is captured by the written gospels relatively
late may preserve very old memories.
ORALITY & MEMORY (STORY TELLER'S LICENSE)
17. The oral memory best retains sayings and anecdotes that are short,
provocative, memorable - and oft-repeated.
18. The most frequently recorded words of Jesus in the surving gospels take
the form of aphorisms and parables.
19. The earliest layer of teh gospel tradition is made up of singl;e
aphorisms and parables that circulated by word of mouth prior to the written
gospels.
20. Jesus' disciples remembered the core or gist of his sayings and
parables, not his precise words, except in rare cases.
DISTINCTIVE DISCOURSE
21. Jesus' characteristic talk was distinctive - it can usually be
distinguished from common lore. otherwise it is futuile to search for the
authentic words of Jesus.
22. Jesus' sayings and parables cut against the social and religious grain.
23. Jesus' sayings and parables surprise and shock: they characteristically
call for a reversal of roles or frustrate ordinary, everyday expectations.
24. Jesus' sayings and prables are often characterised by exaggeration,
humour, and paradox.
25. Jesus' images are concrete nd vivid, his sayings and parables
customarily metaphorical and without explicit application.
THE LACONIC SAGE
26. Jesus does not as a rule initiate dialogue or debate, nor does he offer
to cure people.
27. Jesus rarely makes pronouncements or speaks about himself in the first
person.
28. Jesus makes no claim to be the Anointed, the messiah.
AGENDA
29. Canonical boundaries are irrelevant in critical assessments of the
various sources of information about Jesus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a rule of thumb I use the following .........My comments in *[ ...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6 BCE
- Jesus birth
27 - 34 CE
- Jesus' death
50 - 60 CE
- 1 Thessalonians (Paul)
- Philippians (Paul)
- Galatians (Paul)
- 1 Corinthians (Paul)
- 2 Corinthians (Paul)
- Romans (Paul)
- Philemon (Paul)
*[These documents are the BEST REPRESENTATION OF PAUL'S BELIEF but:
- The documents have been edited
- Paul never met the historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth.
- Paul gives no miraculous birth so it seems likely that early tradition did
not include a virgin birth.
- Paul says nothing about Jesus doing miracles so it seems likely that the
early church did not believe that Jesus did miracles - except healing
miracles as witnessed by Mark's gospel.
- Paul is clear to differentiate between God the Father and Jesus as lord /
boss and God's Christ. This is in keeping with Judaism that onlys the
worship of only ONE God but speculation on whom God's human Messiah might be
is left up to the individual.
- Paul places emphasis on his vision of Jesus as being equal to meeting
Jesus in time / space history. This claim is unproven.
- Paul claims to be an apostle yet he differs on major points with those who
met Jesus of Nazareth, namely Peter, James and John.]
50 - 80 CE
- Colossians (May not be Paul)
*[ Doesn't shed any extra light on Jesus of Nazareth]
50 - 95 CE
- Hebrews (Not Paul)
*[ Probably written more towards the 95 CE as it has refences to Jesus as a
human sacrifice and also as God - like John's gospel. This reflects the
change in beliefs of the Gentile church at the close of the 1st century.
This book adds nothing to the knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth.]
65 - 80 CE
- Mark's gospel
- Source may be Peter
- Messianic secret
- Based on Deuteronomy / liturgy
- All actions could be done in one week
*[ The MOST RELIABLE book in the Protestant New Testament regarding the
historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth. It give the closest idea of the
real Jesus. However, it has been edited (eg the ending). This book becomes
the FOUNDATION for all the other gospels to be written. All the other
gospels add to, delete parts, or modify Mark's gospel. This is the last
Jewish book written concerning Jesus before Jerusalem is destroyed. Those
Jews reading this gospel could easily meet Jesus' apostles in Jerusalem as
they went to the Temple and ask them about Jesus. Jesus is NOT presented as
God but as an itinerant Jewish rabbi who healed people, who presented a
message of turning from sin because God's kingdom was here, right now.]
****************************************************
70 CE <DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWISH TEMPLE - FALL OF JERUSALEM>
*[The importannce of this cannot be over stressed. EVERYTHING CHANGED after
this date - INCLUDING HOW JESUS WAS PERCEIVED.]
*****************************************************
*[ BEFORE this time Christianity is a Jewish sect which worships the same
ONE God as all other Jews do but which sees Jesus of Nazareth as God's human
Messiah. One could view Christianity pre-70 CE as a "denomination" of
Judaism that believed that Jesus of Nazareth was God's anointed human.
ALL of the remaining books and letters are INCREASINGLY influenced by
GENTILE thought till the finalisation in John's gospel. The church is no
longer focussed in Jerusalem. Jesus' apostles aren't there to talk to and
correct errors. Christianity separates from Judaism over the problem of
Christians eating with Gentiles which is not allowed by Jewish tradition.
The "Jesus as God" cult is born at the end of the 1st century by adopting
the ideas of the Roma Empire into its ideology. The Roman Emperor Domitian
(Titus Flavius Domitianus) reigned reigned from 81 to 96 (Note the dates and
note when both John's gospel and Revelation were written!). Christians
wished to show that Jesus was greater than Domitian who was "666" - "very
evil" - and who called himself by the titles "lord and god". In Gentile
eyes Jesus was at least equal to Domitian as "lord and god". This change in
the view of Jesus was not possible when Christianity was a Jewish sect and
part of Judaism pre-70 CE. Jews would never allow a human to be called God.
The changed happened because Christians seperated from Judaism over the
issue of eating food with Gentiles.]
70 - 100 CE
- James
*[ Doesn't shed any extra light on Jesus of Nazareth]
80 -100 CE
- 2 Thessalonians (May not be Paul)
- Ephesians (May not be Paul)
*[ Doesn't shed any extra light on Jesus of Nazareth]
80 -100 CE
- Matthew's gospel
- Addressed to Diaspora
- Written in Antioch
- Conservative
- 90% of the references to Hell
- Based on Moses' life / Exodus
- Portrays division between Jews and Christians
*[ This a Gentile perspective. Matthew quotes from the GREEK Septuagint.
His lack of knowledge regarding Hebrew causes a Hebrew word for "young
woman" to be translated by him in Greek as "virgin" and thus starts the
"irgin Birth" myth. He is living in the Roman Empire and DOESN'T WANT
TROUBLE WITH ROME. He goes to great length to show that Christian AREN'T
like the Jews whom the Roman Empire had so much trouble with in the past -
ending with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. He wants to demonstrate that
Christians will be loyal to the Roman Empire, pay taxes and obey the
government, and he blames the Jews for killing the Christian's Christ.]
80 -110 CE
- 1 Peter
*[ Doesn't shed any extra light on Jesus of Nazareth]
80 CE - 130 CE
- Luke's gospel, Acts (both written in Caesarea)
- Roman recognition sought
- Gentile interested in universalism
- Focuses on spirit
- Based on II Isaiah
- Jesus portrayed as greater than Elijah
*[ Luke continues the diatribe against Jews because he is also in the midst
of the Roman Empire and Paul has caused problems for both Jew and Christians
wherever he goes. Luke changes Matthew's words into more "spiritual"
sounding applications as he thinks Matthew is to "earthy". For example
Matthew's "Blessed are the poor" becomes "Blessed are the poor IN SPIRIT"
for Luke - thus CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE.]
90 - 95 CE
- Revelation of John (Not the apostle John)
- Apocalyptic genre
*[Written about The Roman Emperor DOMITIAN - "lord and god" - 666 - in hope
that God's Messiah (who is "REALLY" God) would come to destroy the Roman
Empire and as a way to encourage GENTILE Christians undergoing persecution
by him, and those who followed him. This apocalypse borrows from the Old
Testament prophets and especially the book of Daniel. It has ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING ABOUT THE TIME / SPACE JESUS OF NAZARETH. It is couched in symbolic
language that people of the day would have understood but is mostly lost to
those of our time. As with other apocalypses it ends with warnings about
not adding or subtracting to the book - IE REVELATION NOT THE BIBLE!]
90 -120 CE.
- I John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude
*[ Forgeries that don't shed any extra light on Jesus of Nazareth]
90 -120 CE.
- John's Gospel
- Not the apostle
- Written in Ephesus
- Centred in Judea / Jerusalem not synoptic Gallilee
- Actions over 3-4 years instead of synoptics 1 year
- Symbolic narrative
- Focus on Wisdom and Word
- Focus on self rather than kingdom of God
- No Ascension or Pentecost
*[ The pinnacle of the change made by GENTILES on the sect of Judaism called
Christianity. The writer is an educated person who writes in good Greek and
therefore not the illiterate Jewish fisherman, John the apostle. He has
also sudied GREEK PHILOSOPHY and, in particular, the philosophy of Philo
regarding the "world mind" or "logos" which he has adapted for his own
purpose as Jewish legend states that GOD CREATED BY SAYING THE NAME OF THE
MESSIAH - in the beginning was the WORD / NAME of the human Messiah whom God
had anointed before the creation of the universe. See Louis Ginzberg's
"Legends of The Bible". VERY LITTLE in this gospel was ever stated by the
historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus' original 12 apostles would
not have recognised the Jesus portrayed in this gospel. This is the
FUNDAMENTALIST'S FAVOURITE BOOK yet it comes towards the end of a huge
history of editing beginning with Mark's gospel.]
100 -150 CE
-1 Timothy (Not Paul)
- 2 Timothy (Not Paul)
- Titus (Not Paul)
*[ Forgeries that don't shed any extra light on Jesus of Nazareth]
100 -160 CE
- 2 Peter (Not Peter)
*[ Forgery that doesn't shed any extra light on Jesus of Nazareth]
#######################################################
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Your "biblical teaching" is FUNDAMENTALISM which was invented
>> > by men (sexism intended) in 1895.
> >> Jesus did not believe your "biblical teaching".
> ...
> > When did Jesus not believe the teaching that is in the New Testament?
> > start of the Fundalmentalist movement adopted ideas contrary to the
> > gospel of Jesus Christ?
>
> They DON'T practise the ORIGINAL gospel as described in the FIRST gospel
> ever written - Mark's gospel (65 - 80 CE). This was repeated in Matthew's
> gospel (80 -100 CE).
>
> 1:15; 4:11; 4:14; 6:12; 9:1;13:9-10 all describe the gospel / good news as
> announcing that the kingdom [realm] of God is here so one must turn away
> from one's sins. Nothing more! Count how many times Jesus says the "the
> kingdom of God is like" in Mark's gospel!
>
From the preface to Mark's gospel from my KJV (Zondervan) Bible
'The book of Mark appears to be addressed to Roman people who would
wonder why Christians would do such a seemingly foolish thing as to
follow a man who had been executed as a common criminal. By describing
Jesus' deeds and teachings, the author showed how Jesus offended the
religious leaders, how they in turn secured His crucifixion from
Pilate, and how God overrules that opposition by raising Him from the
dead. Mark shows Jesus as the Son of God, worthy to be believed and
followed.'
Do you have any difficulties with that summary, Mark?
Mark 1 : 15 (Jesus said), "The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of
God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel".
Mark 4 : 11 Jesus said, "Unto you it is given to know the mystery of
the kingdom of God: but them that are without, all these things are
done in parable."
Mark 4 : 14 "The sower soweth the word."
Mark 6 : 12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
Mark 9 : 1 And He said to them, Verily I say unto you, That there be
some of them that stand here, which shall not taste death, till they
have seen the kingdom of God come in power.
Mark 13 : 9 - 10 Jesus said, "But take heed to yourselves, for they
shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues you shall be
beaten : and you shall be brought before rulers and kings for My sake,
for a testimony against them: And the gospel must first be published
among all nations.
What is the gospel (the good news) that is contained in those verses,
as you understand the 'gospel', Mark?
How and why is it that Christians who call themselves
'Fundamentalists' or who are called that by others don't practise the
gospel as contained in those verses
in todays' world, according to your understandings, Mark? .
Is it that those verses were specific (in whole or in part) to Mark's
(Peter's) time rather than today?
<snip> Hope to come back to your other comments later.
Gladys Swager
I
>> They DON'T practise the ORIGINAL gospel as described in the FIRST >>
>> gospel ever written - Mark's gospel (65 - 80 CE). This was repeated in >>
>> Matthew's gospel (80 -100 CE).
> MARK'S GOSPEL (ending at Mark 16:8)
>
> Why do you end Mark's gospel at verse 8?
Everything after that verse is an addition at a later date.
> 1:15; 4:11; 4:14; 6:12; 9:1;13:9-10 all describe the gospel / good news as
> announcing that the kingdom [realm] of God is here so one must turn away
> from one's sins. Nothing more! Count how many times Jesus says the "the
> kingdom of God is like" in Mark's gospel!
>
> From the preface to Mark's gospel from my KJV (Zondervan)
The preface is only the subjective opinion of a Fundamentalist publishing
house - Zondervan.
The gospel / good news is that the kingdom [realm] of God has already
arrived NOW so one must turn away from one's sins.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
> >> They DON'T practise the ORIGINAL gospel as described in the FIRST >>
> >> gospel ever written - Mark's gospel (65 - 80 CE). This was repeated in >>
> >> Matthew's gospel (80 -100 CE).
> > MARK'S GOSPEL (ending at Mark 16:8)
>
> > Why do you end Mark's gospel at verse 8?
>
> Everything after that verse is an addition at a later date.
>
And what is your proof that Mark 16 : 9 - 20 is not authentic?
> > 1:15; 4:11; 4:14; 6:12; 9:1;13:9-10 all describe the gospel / good news as
> > announcing that the kingdom [realm] of God is here so one must turn away
> > from one's sins. Nothing more! Count how many times Jesus says the "the
> > kingdom of God is like" in Mark's gospel!
>
> > From the preface to Mark's gospel from my KJV (Zondervan)
>
> The preface is only the subjective opinion of a Fundamentalist publishing
> house - Zondervan.
>
and the author couldn't possibly be writing truth?
Apologies for my sarcasm, but it seems to me that the only persons who
speak truth, as far as you are concerned, are the liberals from the
late 1800's who began an academic study of the scirptures to suit
their own ideas.
And don't criticise them!
> The gospel / good news is that the kingdom [realm] of God has already
> arrived NOW so one must turn away from one's sins.
>
And who will forgive you your sins - another human being - a sinner
like to yourself?
What part does Jesus Christ occupy in your theology - or do you just
count Him as a figment of the early disciples imagination?
So do you believe that Paul was wrong when he wrote to the Ephesians,
By grace are we saved through faith and that not of ourselves
***it is the gift of God***
Not of works, lest any one should boast?
And was Jesus Christ wrong when He told Nicodemus.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
***that whoseoever believes in Him shall not perish
but shall have everlating Life***?
Who, do you think, Mark, is God's only begotten Son?
How could God have a Son?
Muslims say that God can't have a Son; many Christians say that He
did.
Is it possible to be a Christian without believing that God did have a
Son?
How would you answer that. Mark?
Give Biblical (New Testament) scripture references to support your
answer?
Gladys Swager
Linda Lee
wrote:
> On Nov 9, 10:51 am, "I" wrote:> swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > >> Your "biblical teaching" is FUNDAMENTALISM which was invented
> >> > by men (sexism intended) in 1895.
> > >> Jesus did not believe your "biblical teaching".
> > ...
> > > When did Jesus not believe the teaching that is in the New Testament?
> > > In your opinion, how do you think that those who were involved in the
> > > start of the Fundalmentalist movement adopted ideas contrary to the
> > > gospel of Jesus Christ?
>
> > They DON'T practise the ORIGINAL gospel as described in the FIRST gospel
> > ever written - Mark's gospel (65 - 80 CE). This was repeated in Matthew's
> > gospel (80 -100 CE).
Mark T (posting as "I") has posted one of his usual inaccuracies
here. Mark's gospel was NOT "repeated" in Matthew's gospel. Mark
begins with John's baptism of the Messiah. Matthew begins with the
miraculous birth (Matt. 1:18, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on
this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they
came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost") and
genealogy of the Messiah and the reason he was given his name; it goes
on with him being born in Bethlehem fulfilling a prophesy of the
Messiah as "King of the Jews" (Matt. 2:1-2), and has him called from
Egypt fulfilling another prophesy (Matt. 2:15), and shows him being
worshipped from birth (Matt. 2:11, "And when they were come into the
house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down,
and worshipped him").
These are huge differences, and the Gospel of Matthew is NOT simply a
repeat of Mark's Gospel. Mark's Gospel says none of the above and The
only time the Messiah is called "King of the Jews" in the Gospel of
Mark is when he's being interrogated and crucified; otherwise, the
Gospel of Mark says none of the above that is in the Gospel of
Matthew.
The Gospel of Matthew is the Gospel taught by the Christian churches,
and it is the most reliable one and the only synoptic Gospel that is
actually written by an apostle (neither Mark nor Luke were apostles,
and the Gospel of John does not give a synopsis and is not considered
a synoptic Gospel).
Mark T is speaking from ignorance of what is contained in both the
gospels, and/or just prefers the Gospel of Mark because of what it
leaves out, which he rejects.
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God;
Mar 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger
before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mar 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way
of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Mar 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins.
Mar 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they
of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan,
confessing their sins.
Mar 1:6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of
a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;
Mar 1:7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after
me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and
unloose.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize
you with the Holy Ghost.
Mar 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from
Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
Also it doesn't matter one bit which gospel was believe to have been
written *first*. Mark (John Mark) was not an apostle; he is known as
'the evangelist' and is believed to have been the son of Peter. But
Matthew was an apostle and received teaching from the Messiah himself
and wrote the better more complete version of the Gospel.
> > MARK'S GOSPEL (ending at Mark 16:8)
>
> Why do you end Mark's gospel at verse 8?
Mark T has chosen to end it with verse 8 because the two oldest
manuscripts (as if the age matters), the Codex Vaticanus and Codex
Sinaiticus end at verse 8. However, there is a longer version, and
many Greek manuscripts contain the longer version that is in the
English bibles.
Mark T denies the Messiah should be worshipped so he prefers Mark's
gospel which leaves out all mention of the angel announcing the
miraculous birth of the Messiah, which fulfilled prophesies in the
Hebrew Scriptures.
Sean McHugh
Linda Lee wrote:
>
> On Nov 8, 9:36 pm, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 10:51 am, "I" wrote:> swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > >> Your "biblical teaching" is FUNDAMENTALISM which was invented
> > >> > by men (sexism intended) in 1895.
> > > >> Jesus did not believe your "biblical teaching".
> > > ...
> > > > When did Jesus not believe the teaching that is in the New Testament?
> > > > In your opinion, how do you think that those who were involved in the
> > > > start of the Fundalmentalist movement adopted ideas contrary to the
> > > > gospel of Jesus Christ?
> >
> > > They DON'T practise the ORIGINAL gospel as described in the FIRST gospel
> > > ever written - Mark's gospel (65 - 80 CE). This was repeated in Matthew's
> > > gospel (80 -100 CE).
> Mark T (posting as "I") has posted one of his usual inaccuracies
> here. Mark's gospel was NOT "repeated" in Matthew's gospel.
It pretty much was. Matthew uses about 90% of Mark and Luke uses about
half that. Both Matthew and Luke add their own material.
> Mark begins with John's baptism of the Messiah. Matthew begins with
> the miraculous birth (Matt. 1:18,
Mark T is correct. Matthew starts two chapters before Mark, as does
Luke. However before using Mark, at chapters 3, Matthew and Luke have
diverged greatly and are at odds with each other, not only in terms of
story, but even in geography. In chapters 3, where they use Mark,
Matthew and Luke lock into harmony, hence the term, 'Synoptics'. This
can be clearly seen in a book that has the first three Gospels side by
side in columns. I recommend "Gospel Parallels", by Burton and
Throckmorton.
> "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on
> this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they
> came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost") and
> genealogy of the Messiah and the reason he was given his name; it goes
> on with him being born in Bethlehem fulfilling a prophesy of the
> Messiah as "King of the Jews" (Matt. 2:1-2), and has him called from
> Egypt fulfilling another prophesy (Matt. 2:15), and shows him being
> worshipped from birth (Matt. 2:11, "And when they were come into the
> house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down,
> and worshipped him").
> These are huge differences, and the Gospel of Matthew is NOT simply a
> repeat of Mark's Gospel. Mark's Gospel says none of the above and The
> only time the Messiah is called "King of the Jews" in the Gospel of
> Mark is when he's being interrogated and crucified; otherwise, the
> Gospel of Mark says none of the above that is in the Gospel of
> Matthew.
The wide variance in Matthew and Luke's chapters one and two, before
they join Mark, doesn't refute the point, it makes it.
> The Gospel of Matthew is the Gospel taught by the Christian churches,
> and it is the most reliable one and the only synoptic Gospel that is
> actually written by an apostle (neither Mark nor Luke were apostles,
> and the Gospel of John does not give a synopsis and is not considered
> a synoptic Gospel).
You are using 'synopsis' in a different context to that referred to in
the 'Synoptic Problem'. Giving a summary of the main points (a
synopsis) is not why the other three, the Synoptic Gospels, are so
named. The 'Synoptic Problem' refers to the irrefutable
interdependence.
> Mark T is speaking from ignorance of what is contained in both the
> gospels, and/or just prefers the Gospel of Mark because of what it
> leaves out, which he rejects.
No, Mark T is quite familiar with the 'Synoptic Problem'. It appears
to be news to you. You can find out more about it here at Bible.org:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=669
<rest snipped>
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Linda Lee
> Linda Lee wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 9:36 pm, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
> > > On Nov 9, 10:51 am, "I" wrote:> swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > >> Your "biblical teaching" is FUNDAMENTALISM which was invented
> > > >> > by men (sexism intended) in 1895.
> > > > >> Jesus did not believe your "biblical teaching".
> > > > ...
> > > > > When did Jesus not believe the teaching that is in the New Testament?
> > > > > In your opinion, how do you think that those who were involved in the
> > > > > start of the Fundalmentalist movement adopted ideas contrary to the
> > > > > gospel of Jesus Christ?
>
> > > > They DON'T practise the ORIGINAL gospel as described in the FIRST gospel
> > > > ever written - Mark's gospel (65 - 80 CE). This was repeated in Matthew's
> > > > gospel (80 -100 CE).
> > Mark T (posting as "I") has posted one of his usual inaccuracies
> > here. Mark's gospel was NOT "repeated" in Matthew's gospel.
>
> It pretty much was. Matthew uses about 90% of Mark
That's a gross exaggeration, Mark left out many, many teachings that
are in the Gospel of Matthew.
> and Luke uses about
> half that. Both Matthew and Luke add their own material.
Did it ever occur to you that Luke admits he gathered info from people
who had alleged to him to have been eyewitnesses, and perhaps both the
evangelist Mark and the apostle Matthew heard many of the same sermons
given to the masses, but that Matthew heard more from the private
teachings of the Messiah?
>
> > Mark begins with John's baptism of the Messiah. Matthew begins with
> > the miraculous birth (Matt. 1:18,
>
> Mark T is correct.
Baloney.
> Matthew starts two chapters before Mark, as does
> Luke.
And the Gospel of the Evangelist Mark leaves out MAJOR teachings that
are in the report of the APOSTLE Matthew, in effect Mark's gospel
denies the Messiah was seen as a miraculous birth and King of the Jews
and fulfillment of the prophecies of the expected Messiah and Saviour;
those OMISSIONS are why NON-believers prefer the Gospel of Mark.
Mark T (posting as "I") has posted one of his usual inaccuracies
here. Mark's gospel was NOT "repeated" in Matthew's gospel. Mark
begins with John's baptism of the Messiah. Matthew begins with the
miraculous birth (Matt. 1:18, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on
this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they
came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost") and
genealogy of the Messiah and the reason he was given his name; it goes
on with him being born in Bethlehem fulfilling a prophesy of the
Messiah as "King of the Jews" (Matt. 2:1-2), and has him called from
Egypt fulfilling another prophesy (Matt. 2:15), and shows him being
worshipped from birth (Matt. 2:11, "And when they were come into the
house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down,
and worshipped him").
These are HUGE differences, and the Gospel of Matthew is NOT simply a
repeat of Mark's Gospel. Mark's Gospel says none of the above and The
only time the Messiah is called "King of the Jews" in the Gospel of
Mark is when he's being interrogated and crucified [where they are
RIDICULING the idea he was King of the Jews, the expected King Messiah
as the Jewish sage RASHI calls the Messiah]; otherwise, the Gospel of
Mark says none of the above that is in the Gospel of
Matthew.
> However before using Mark, at chapters 3, Matthew and Luke have
> diverged greatly and are at odds with each other, not only in terms
> of story, but even in geography.
Then we should go with Matthew when there are inconsistencies and
Matthew was the only one out of Matthew, Mark, and Luke who was an
APOSTLE.
>
> > "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on
> > this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they
> > came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost") and
> > genealogy of the Messiah and the reason he was given his name; it goes
> > on with him being born in Bethlehem fulfilling a prophesy of the
> > Messiah as "King of the Jews" (Matt. 2:1-2), and has him called from
> > Egypt fulfilling another prophesy (Matt. 2:15), and shows him being
> > worshipped from birth (Matt. 2:11, "And when they were come into the
> > house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down,
> > and worshipped him").
> > These are huge differences, and the Gospel of Matthew is NOT simply a
> > repeat of Mark's Gospel. Mark's Gospel says none of the above and The
> > only time the Messiah is called "King of the Jews" in the Gospel of
> > Mark is when he's being interrogated and crucified; otherwise, the
> > Gospel of Mark says none of the above that is in the Gospel of
> > Matthew.
>
> The wide variance in Matthew and Luke's chapters one and two, before
> they join Mark, doesn't refute the point, it makes it.
You're BLIND. The Doctor, Luke, was NOT an eyewitness and NOT an
apostle. Mark was NOT an apostle, but was a believer, and is called
the Evangelist. The APOSTLE Matthew was chosen and trained by the
Messiah himself and told to go and teach ALL NATIONS what the Messiah
had taught him. Which the Apostle Matthew did, and some people choose
to reject in favor of following the evangelist Mark's partial version
or Doctor Luke's version.
Notice the Evangelist Mark and the Doctor Luke are not included in the
following instruction, but the Apostle Matthew IS:
Mat 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a
mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Mat 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some
doubted.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and TEACH ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world. Amen.
>
> > The Gospel of Matthew is the Gospel taught by the Christian churches,
> > and it is the most reliable one and the only synoptic Gospel that is
> > actually written by an apostle (neither Mark nor Luke were apostles,
> > and the Gospel of John does not give a synopsis and is not considered
> > a synoptic Gospel).
>
> You are using 'synopsis' in a different context to that referred to in
> the 'Synoptic Problem'. Giving a summary of the main points (a
> synopsis) is not why the other three, the Synoptic Gospels, are so
> named. The 'Synoptic Problem' refers to the irrefutable
> interdependence.
I was explaining what is meant by a 'synoptic gospel', not what the
alleged "Synoptic Problem" presents.
The Gospel of Mark should never have been given the title of a
'synoptic gospel' since it leaves out major principal parts of what is
in the Gospel of Matthew, but Mark does partially report on the words
of the Messiah and the events of his baptism and death. But again, the
Gospel of Mark again is extremely brief and omits much about what
occurred after the resurrection.
Furthermore, Matthew calls the appearance encountered by Mary
Magdalene an "angel", but Mark calls him a "man":
Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the
first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see
the sepulchre.
Mat 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the *** ANGEL
of the Lord *** descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the
stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Mat 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as
snow:
Mat 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as
dead men.
Mat 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye:
for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
Mat 28:6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the
place where the Lord lay.
Mat 28:7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from
the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall
ye see him: lo, I have told you.
Mar 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might
come and anoint him.
Mar 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week,
they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
Mar 16:3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the
stone from the door of the sepulchre?
Mar 16:4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled
away: for it was very great.
Mar 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young MAN
sitting on the right side, clothed in a long WHITE GARMENT; and they
were affrighted.
Mar 16:6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of
Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the
place where they laid him.
Mar 16:7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth
before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
Gee, that's NOT the same story AT ALL, now the "angel of the Lord" the
Apostle Matthew reported, has become a man dressed in white" according
to the Evangelist Mark; so HOW is this a synopsis of the events
Matthew reported? IT ISN'T.
Neither does the Gospel of Mark explain why this young apparently calm
man caused them to be "affrighted" (Mark 16:5), but we can understand
why people (the keepers of the tomb) fainted at the sight of the
"angel of the Lord".
However, the Gospel of Mark DOES confirm that the Messiah told the
APOSTLES only to preach his message to all nations (again MARK was NOT
an apostle):
Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat,
and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because
they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned.
The Gospel of Mark does NOT give a summary of "the main points" (since
it leaves out much of what was in Matthew as I explained above), but
of the main events that Mark happened to see or heard of from others,
likely Peter.
I don't need the Apostle Matthew's words proven to me by the consensus
and corroboration of the NON-eyewitnesses (i.e. the Evangelist Mark
and Doctor Luke) to the personal teachings of the Messiah. If anyone
else does, that is their "Problem", not mine.
>
> > Mark T is speaking from ignorance of what is contained in both the
> > gospels, and/or just prefers the Gospel of Mark because of what it
> > leaves out, which he rejects.
>
>
> <rest snipped>
>
> Best Regards,
You would do better to regard the writings of the true apostles who
were actually personally taught by the Messiah (that would be Peter,
Matthew, and Jude) and quit relying upon the writings of these present-
day authors (and especially Mark T's misunderstandings); authors who
have NOT done a careful analysis or comparison themselves of the
contents of the Scriptures, and just feed off of each others'
writings, adding error upon error, and preaching what turns out to be
false.
>
> Sean McHugh
I
>>> >> They DON'T practise the ORIGINAL gospel as described in the >>> >>
>>> >> FIRST gospel ever written - Mark's gospel (65 - 80 CE). This was
>>> >> >>>>> repeated in Matthew's gospel (80 -100 CE).
>>> > MARK'S GOSPEL (ending at Mark 16:8)
>> > Why do you end Mark's gospel at verse 8?
>> Everything after that verse is an addition at a later date.
>
>What is your proof that is so?
Where is YOUR proof that it is authentic?????
> And what is your proof that Mark 16 : 9 - 20 is not authentic?
Funk, Hoover & The Jesus Seminar
> The gospel / good news is that the kingdom [realm] of God has already
> arrived NOW so one must turn away from one's sins.
>
> And who will forgive you your sins
God as the Old Testament states ...
"Look unto Me [YAHWEH], and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I
[YAHWEH] am God, and there is none else [INCLUDING JESUS OF NAZARETH]."
Isaiah 45:21
######################################
God spoke all these words, saying:
I the LORD am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house
of bondage: You shall have no other gods besides Me. You shall not make
yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens
above, or on earth below, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not
bow down to them or serve them. For I the LORD your God am an impassioned
God, visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children, upon the third and
upon the fourth generations of those who reject Me, but showing kindness to
the thousandth generation of those who love Me and keep MY commandments.
Exodus 20: 1 - 6 (JPS Tanakh)
#####################################
God does not approve of human sacrifice - "... every abomination to Jehovah,
which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and
their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods." Deut 31:12
> And was Jesus Christ wrong when He told Nicodemus.
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
> ***that whoseoever believes in Him shall not perish but shall have
> everlating Life***?
NEVER stated by the historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The fourth evangelist's style of speech and comment is exemplified in the
remarks in 3:31-36. These remarks are the creation of the evangelist.
There is no suggestion that they should be attributed to Jesus. John 3:
14-21 is written in the same style and with comparable content. had these
verses been included ijn quotation marks as words allegedly spoken by Jesus,
the Fellowship would of course have labeled them black *[ meaning - Jesus
did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or
different tradition.]
It should be recalled that quotation marks do not appear in the original
Greek manuscripts of any of the gospels; most punctuation marks have been
provided by modern editors and translators.
John 3:14-21, in the judgement of the Fellows, should not be enclosed in
quotation marks. The Scholar's Version places closing quotation marks at
the end of v. 13, although some modern translartions incorrectly include vv.
14-21 in Jesus' quoted speech.
from Robert W Funk, Roy W Hoover and the Jesus Seminar "The Five Gospels"
(McMillan: 1993) p. 409
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Is it possible to be a Christian without believing that God did have a
> Son?
Yep!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is probably time to substitute right behaviour - orthopraxis - for
right doctrine - orthodoxy. The mark of a Christian ought to be not what
one believes but how one acts.
from Robert W. Funk "Honest To Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium" (Hodder &
Stoughton: 1996) p.312
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jesus himself is not the proper object of faith.
...
Jesus called on his followers to trust the Father, to believe in God's
domain or reign. The proper object of faith inspired by Jesus is to trust
what Jesus trusted. For that reasonm, I am not primarily interested in
affirmations about Jesus but in the truths that inspired and informed Jesus.
To call for faith in Jesus is to subsititute the agent for the reality, the
proclaimer for the proclaimed. ...
Jesus pointed to God's domain, something he did not create, something he
did not control. I want to discover what Jesus saw, or heard, or sensed that
was so enchanting, so mezmerizing, so challenging that it held Jesus in its
spell. And I do not want to bhe misled by what his followers did: instead of
looking to see what he saw, his devoted disciples tended to stare at the
pointing finger. Jesus himself should not be, must not be, the object of
faith. That would be to repeat the idolatry of the first believers.
From Robert W. Funk "Honest To Jesus: Jesus for a New Millenium" (Hodder &
Stoughton: 1996) pp. 304-305
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
> It pretty much was. Matthew uses about 90% of Mark and Luke uses
> about half that. Both Matthew and Luke add their own material.
>
>> Mark begins with John's baptism of the Messiah. Matthew begins with
>> the miraculous birth (Matt. 1:18,
>
> Mark T is correct. Matthew starts two chapters before Mark, as does
> Luke. However before using Mark, at chapters 3, Matthew and Luke have
> diverged greatly and are at odds with each other, not only in terms of
> story, but even in geography. In chapters 3, where they use Mark,
> Matthew and Luke lock into harmony, hence the term, 'Synoptics'. This
> can be clearly seen in a book that has the first three Gospels side by
> side in columns. I recommend "Gospel Parallels", by Burton and
> Throckmorton.
...
> No, Mark T is quite familiar with the 'Synoptic Problem'. It appears
> to be news to you. You can find out more about it here at Bible.org:
> http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=669
Yep to all!
My detractors don't even know how their preciopus little bible was put
together.
Mordecai
I wrote:
> "Sean McHugh" wrote:
>
> > It pretty much was. Matthew uses about 90% of Mark and Luke uses
> > about half that. Both Matthew and Luke add their own material.
> >
> >> Mark begins with John's baptism of the Messiah. Matthew begins with
> >> the miraculous birth (Matt. 1:18,
> >
> > Mark T is correct. Matthew starts two chapters before Mark, as does
> > Luke. However before using Mark, at chapters 3, Matthew and Luke have
> > diverged greatly and are at odds with each other, not only in terms of
> > story, but even in geography. In chapters 3, where they use Mark,
> > Matthew and Luke lock into harmony, hence the term, 'Synoptics'. This
> > can be clearly seen in a book that has the first three Gospels side by
> > side in columns. I recommend "Gospel Parallels", by Burton and
> > Throckmorton.
> ...
> > No, Mark T is quite familiar with the 'Synoptic Problem'. It appears
> > to be news to you. You can find out more about it here at Bible.org:
> > http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=669
>
> Yep to all!
>
> My detractors don't even know how their preciopus little bible was put
> together.
>
One of the problems I have is the reference in Matthew to Isiah 53.
This is such a difficult problem I have had to conclude it is a write in ...
or a rewrite.
Why?
1) there are two sets of evidence that the book of Matthew was written in
Hebrew - verbal accounts and translator accounts.
Verbal accounts come form the early church.
Translation accounts come from the ease which the words get translated into
Hebrew.
2) This and several other verses make reference to the Septuagint ... the
greek translation of the Hebrew. This is incompatible with a book written in
Hebrew.
You have the real deal - not translations. Why would a hebrew reader use
greek references and why would hebrew readers accept greek distortions?
3a) Theological problems ... the first theological problem is that this was
supposedly a sign ... as it reads G_d himself will give you a sign" but this
was not supposed to be given to the jews.
3b) This sign requires faith that JC was a virgin. Now please note the issue
is not "was JC a virgin" but rather "Have faith that JC was a virgin" which
is a different matter. If JC has blue eyes - that is one thing but to say
"have faith that JC had blue eyes" then it has a different connotation.
Theologically - "faith" in the virgin birth is contrary to everything else
recorded including the book of Matthew.
3c) Jews are not ... comfortable ...with the virgin birth concept as it is
alien to our language. Not impossible - but it really is uncomfortable.
3d) this virgin birth then is used to call upon Isiah 53 to claim the
promises.
3e) the promises given to the child seen at that time were not really given
to the child at that time but actually given to JC instead.
3f) and these promises (in the name) show JC as G_d and in charge and thus
prove JC is G_d and in charge because he is a virgin which is accepted in
faith based upon misreading the hebrew - because you are reading it from
the greek translation instead of the original.
I have already spoken that Isiah 53 is a sign given by G_d ... and a sign is
to be SEEN, and it is faith in what we see which causes us to have faith in
the unseen.
So what is the sign of the virgin birth? Faith that the virgin birth took
place.
So did G_d give a sign or not?
No.
If G_d did not give a sign - then Isiah 53 which is a sign from G_d does not
refer to JC to whom no sign was given.
Ergo - this does not prove JC.
In fact it DISPROVES JC!
I looked at this and said "not a chance." Illogical, internal logic errors,
external logic errors, theological errors, no way.
So I looked at alternatives and the easiest is that numbnuts ignoramus fred
decided that he had a pet doctrine and wrote this in.
Immediately things ease out ... Fred is not a jew and uses the Septuagint.
He finds what he considers important to his doctrines and inserts them.
He does not realize that he has caused an item of faith that JC was born of
a virgin because to fred, this is a fact and will be accepted by everyone.
he has found a lever to prove JC and is seeking to convince others of it ..
This causes so many of the problems to disappear that i personally think
that fred wrote this into the book of Matthew, presume this was an "insert."
Because the alternative is that G_d is a liar, JC is a liar, the NT is false
- and that Christianity is utter garbage.
I have many choices ...
1) Matthew is correct as given. To me - throw out Christianity entirely.
2) Matthew has inserts ... in which case we need biblical criticism to
ignore the falsehood that fred has inadvertently added to the NT because he
had a bee in his bonnet about the virgin birth and wanted to write it into
scriptures which did not have such a reference.
3) Matthew was a rewrite in its entirety though based upon the original ...
4) Matthew was an out and out nut case and Christianity was so perverse as
to believe this nutter..
Personally - I have decided it was an insert or a rewrite.
In all probability, I think this was a rewrite ... lots of things changed
slightly - additions, falsehoods and distortions.
The original was probably one of the first books.
The rewrite was a latter book, written after the others.
If it is a rewrite - the conclusion on that web page is false.
I am sure that people will try to debate this - for them it is an affront to
their religion. I know, i used to be amongst them.
However, the key is this theological argument - faith in WHAT?
JC states what people are to hold in faith.
And the virgin birth, and trinity and all sort of other ideas are NOT to be
faith issues.
Even resurrection from the dead is not a faith issue.
I repeat - this is not about "Is this doctrine correct or not" but rather
"Is this an item of faith?"
Anything which requires faith which is ... not essential ... is not an item
of faith.
Belief - yes ... faith, no.
JC tells you what are items of faith. Listen to him - I figure he knows what
he is talking about.
Let me show you something else which adds to this.
The report of the prayers JC prayed before he was crucified told of many
verses which were to be fulfilled when he died.
He noted that these verses could be fulfilled "some other way." He chose to
submit.
What were these verses?
Now if I was part of the early church - this would be my consideration.
If (instead) I wanted to spread my ideas - i would find verses to prove JC
was the messiah.
There is no record of the verses JC claimed about himself.
There are record after record trying to prove JC was the messiah - and these
do not stand up under scrutiny.
Solution - men trying to promote their own ideas in proving JC was the
messiah.
Ergo Isiah 53 was men seeking to do things their way - rewriting the
original concepts and emphasis to prove "their points."
ergo my theoretical numbnuts fred.
--
Mordecai!
When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is
wrong, and reality is Never wrong.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
>
> Funk, Hoover & The Jesus Seminar
>
by a vote - ie the determination of a number of theologicans from
their own understandings.
> > The gospel / good news is that the kingdom [realm] of God has already
> > arrived NOW so one must turn away from one's sins.
>
> > And who will forgive you your sins
>
> God as the Old Testament states ...
>
And you do not believe that God is the Triune God of Father, Son and
Holy Spirit
in Unity. So Jesus did not forgive sins???? Is that what you think?
> God does not approve of human sacrifice - "... every abomination to Jehovah,
> which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and
> their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods." Deut 31:12
>
But God in Jesus Christ partook of death - the punishment for sin - on
the cross
and triumphed because death could not hold Him as He was perfect &
had not sinned. Jesus can now can give Eternal life on His (God's
terms) as a free gift
to those who place their faith in Him.
> > And was Jesus Christ wrong when He told Nicodemus.
> > "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
> > ***that whoseoever believes in Him shall not perish but shall have
> > everlating Life***?
>
> NEVER stated by the historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth ....
>
Never stated because you do not want to believe it? More Jesus
Seminar?
You are using modern critical literary analysis for a text that is
nearly 2000 years old to 'prove' that what you think about the
Biblical record is true.
>
> > Is it possible to be a Christian without believing that God did have a
> > Son?
>
> Yep!
>
The answer is 'No!'.
> It is probably time to substitute right behaviour - orthopraxis - for
> right doctrine - orthodoxy. The mark of a Christian ought to be not what
> one believes but how one acts.
>
That is not the teaching of the New Testament.
Belief in Jesus came first and then behaviours based on that belief
follow.
> Jesus himself is not the proper object of faith.
>
Jesus Christ - perfect Man/perfect God - God revealed to humans -
is the proper person for faith.
John 1 - 1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God
> and the Word was God.
John 1 - 14 We have seen His glory, the glory of the only begotten of
the Father,
full of grace
and truth
Jesus was seen in that glory at His Tranfiguration.
I am now understanding your antagonism towards those who believe in
the Triune God of the Christian faith.
God the Father is Spirit.
God the Holy Spirit is Spirit.
God the Son, born of Mary through the action of the Holy Spirit,
is God in a human body Who can be seen by humans,
God who interacted with humans,
God with Whom we can have a personal personal
relationship
as we place our trust in
Him.
But you are not willing to accept that revelation.
You want to have your own interpretation based on the interpretations
of those
with whom you agree, and every one who does not see it your/their way
is wrong.
You are just as much a 'fundamentalist' for your point of view
as those you decry so often in these
newsgroups -
perhaps even more so!
Gladys Swager
Sean McHugh
Linda Lee wrote:
> On Nov 9, 4:56 am, Sean McHugh <se...@exemail.com.au> wrote:
> > Linda Lee wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 8, 9:36 pm, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Nov 9, 10:51 am, "I" wrote:> swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > >> Your "biblical teaching" is FUNDAMENTALISM which was invented
> > > > >> > by men (sexism intended) in 1895.
> > > > > >> Jesus did not believe your "biblical teaching".
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > When did Jesus not believe the teaching that is in the New Testament?
> > > > > > In your opinion, how do you think that those who were involved in the
> > > > > > start of the Fundalmentalist movement adopted ideas contrary to the
> > > > > > gospel of Jesus Christ?
> >
> > > > > They DON'T practise the ORIGINAL gospel as described in the FIRST gospel
> > > > > ever written - Mark's gospel (65 - 80 CE). This was repeated in Matthew's
> > > > > gospel (80 -100 CE).
> > > Mark T (posting as "I") has posted one of his usual inaccuracies
> > > here. Mark's gospel was NOT "repeated" in Matthew's gospel.
> >
> > It pretty much was. Matthew uses about 90% of Mark
>
> That's a gross exaggeration,
Actually it is slightly conservative. I should have said, "over 90%":
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=669
~ When one compares the synoptic parallels, some startling results
~ are noticed. Of Mark’s 11,025 words, only 132 have no parallel in
~ either Matthew or Luke. Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is
~ duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke. On the other hand,
~ less than 60% of Matthew is duplicated in Mark, and only 47% of
~ Luke is found in Mark.
See that it says, "Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is
duplicated in Matthew;". That is from that page at Bible.org
that I linked for you. I note you snipped the link. You didn't
even have a look did you? That is obvious by the fact that you
are still as completely ignorant about it as you were in the
previous post.
> Mark left out many, many teachings that are in the Gospel of Matthew.
Rather, Matthew added stuff to the markan Gospel.
> > and Luke uses about
> > half that. Both Matthew and Luke add their own material.
> Did it ever occur to you that Luke admits he gathered info from people
> who had alleged to him to have been eyewitnesses, and perhaps both the
> evangelist Mark and the apostle Matthew heard many of the same sermons
> given to the masses, but that Matthew heard more from the private
> teachings of the Messiah?
Be that as it may, it doesn't affect my point. Matthew and Luke copied
from Mark, something you were denying (with regard Matthew). That
author copied over 90% of Mark.
> > > Mark begins with John's baptism of the Messiah. Matthew begins with
> > > the miraculous birth (Matt. 1:18,
> > Mark T is correct.
> Baloney.
He is a search on "Synoptic Problem":
See that it produces 61,000 hits. When you say "Baloney", you really
have no way of knowing. You appear to be oblivious to the Synoptic
Problem and seem determined to keep it that way. This isn't something
that Mark T (or I) just cooked up; the Synoptic Problem is well known
in biblical scholarship.
> > Matthew starts two chapters before Mark, as does
> > Luke.
> And the Gospel of the Evangelist Mark leaves out MAJOR teachings that
> are in the report of the APOSTLE Matthew, in effect Mark's gospel
> denies the Messiah was seen as a miraculous birth and King of the Jews
> and fulfillment of the prophecies of the expected Messiah and Saviour;
> those OMISSIONS are why NON-believers prefer the Gospel of Mark.
They only became 'omissions' in Mark when they were added in Matthew.
> Mark T (posting as "I") has posted one of his usual inaccuracies
> here. Mark's gospel was NOT "repeated" in Matthew's gospel.
Over 90% of Mark appears in Matthew.
> Mark begins with John's baptism of the Messiah. Matthew begins with
> the miraculous birth (Matt. 1:18, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was
> on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before
> they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost") and
> genealogy of the Messiah and the reason he was given his name; it goes
> on with him being born in Bethlehem fulfilling a prophesy of the
> Messiah as "King of the Jews" (Matt. 2:1-2), and has him called from
> Egypt fulfilling another prophesy (Matt. 2:15), and shows him being
> worshipped from birth (Matt. 2:11, "And when they were come into the
> house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down,
> and worshipped him").
Linda, this is all redundant as I have already pointed out that
Matthew and Luke are very divergent in their first to chapters and
remain that way till, in their chapters three, they have Mark
commencing with his J.B. section. There all three Gospels suddenly
lock into harmony. The wide divergence when Mark isn't present and the
sudden harmony with Mark, is not evidence against copying; it is
evidence for copying.
> These are HUGE differences, and the Gospel of Matthew is NOT simply a
> repeat of Mark's Gospel. Mark's Gospel says none of the above and The
> only time the Messiah is called "King of the Jews" in the Gospel of
> Mark is when he's being interrogated and crucified [where they are
> RIDICULING the idea he was King of the Jews, the expected King Messiah
> as the Jewish sage RASHI calls the Messiah]; otherwise, the Gospel of
> Mark says none of the above that is in the Gospel of
> Matthew.
You seem determined to miss the point. People who understand anything
about the Synoptic Problem are well aware that Matthew and Luke added
stuff that isn't included in Mark. If that were not the case, the
documents Matthew and Luke would not be known. They would simply be
books called "Mark". Plagiarising almost never means that one work is
a carbon copy of the other with nothing added or removed. In fact all
that does is produce another copy of the former.
> > However before using Mark, at chapters 3, Matthew and Luke have
> > diverged greatly and are at odds with each other, not only in terms
> > of story, but even in geography.
>
> Then we should go with Matthew when there are inconsistencies and
> Matthew was the only one out of Matthew, Mark, and Luke who was an
> APOSTLE.
Then why does Matthew copy more than 90% of Mark? By the way, when I
refer to the Gospel names, it is to the book titles not the authors.
They are actually anonymous.
Linda, all of that is a red herring and doesn't even touch on my
point. Regardless of the Luke's medical qualifications or Matthew's
Apostolic status, the two documents by that name don't get it together
till they have Mark with them. With Mark, Matthew and Luke can display
harmony right down to the Greek wording. That is significant, given
that Jesus was supposed to be speaking in Aramaic. It means we even
know the language from which the copying was done. The copying was
done from a Greek document, for it is immensely improbable that three
different writers/translators would use the same Greek wording when
translating from Aramaic. This makes Matthew even more unlikely to be
a first-hand account.
> Notice the Evangelist Mark and the Doctor Luke are not included in the
> following instruction, but the Apostle Matthew IS:
> Mat 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a
> mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Mark _does_ include the instruction for the Apostles to proceed to
Galilee (16:6-7), but according to Mark, that instruction isn't ever
delivered (16:8). Matthew copies that and actually has the Apostles
meeting Jesus in Galilee. Luke changes the instruction as its writer
wishes to have the Apostles meeting Jesus in Jerusalem on the day of
the resurrection. That is where Jesus instructs them to remain (24:9)
till Pentecost (47 days away!).
> Mat 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some
> doubted.
> Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
> given unto me in heaven and in earth.
> Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and TEACH ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in
> the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
> Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
> commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
> world. Amen.
Yes, but once again this simply shows that, without Mark present,
Matthew and Luke will diverge widely. The pattern remains, that
when Mark is available, Matthew and Luke will be in harmony and that
otherwise they won't. Mark properly ends at 16:8 and has no
post-resurrection appearances by Jesus. This was obviously
unacceptable for the other two Synoptic writers so Matthew and Luke
both added post resurrection accounts, but ones that deny each other.
Luke's Apostles meet Jesus in Jerusalem on the day of the
resurrection, and he commands them to remain in Jerusalem till (at
Pentecost) they receive the power from on high (24:9). But Pentecost
was 47 days away, longer than the 40 days the resurrected Jesus
allegedly remained on earth (Acts 1:3). Luke informs us that they
obeyed this (Luke 24:52-53). So when did they, in Luke, go to Galilee
to the designated mountain? And why did the undead Jesus leave
instruction for them to go to Galilee, saying he would be going there
before them (Mat 28:10), if he was to meet them in Jerusalem where he
would tell them to say? In Matthew, they complied with the
Mark/Matthew instruction and went to the mountain in Galilee to see
the risen Jesus (28:16). So which is it? See what a mess Matthew and
Luke get into when Mark isn't available?
> > > The Gospel of Matthew is the Gospel taught by the Christian churches,
> > > and it is the most reliable one and the only synoptic Gospel that is
> > > actually written by an apostle (neither Mark nor Luke were apostles,
> > > and the Gospel of John does not give a synopsis and is not considered
> > > a synoptic Gospel).
> >
> > You are using 'synopsis' in a different context to that referred to in
> > the 'Synoptic Problem'. Giving a summary of the main points (a
> > synopsis) is not why the other three, the Synoptic Gospels, are so
> > named. The 'Synoptic Problem' refers to the irrefutable
> > interdependence.
>
> I was explaining what is meant by a 'synoptic gospel', not what the
> alleged "Synoptic Problem" presents.
And I explained that you got it wrong. Quickly looking in WordWeb,
"synoptic" has two main meanings. The first refers to a summary or
general view. That is the meaning you appear to be using. The second,
I will quote:
~ 2 Presenting or taking the same point of view; used especially
~ with regard to the first three gospels of the New Testament
~ "synoptic sayings"
That is what they mean when they talk of the Synoptic Gospels. Here is
some further explanation:
http://www.textexcavation.com/synopticproblem.html
~ The canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the three
~ synoptic gospels. They are called synoptic because they can with
~ relative ease be arranged into the columns of a synopsis so as
~ to be compared pericope by pericope,* phrase by phrase, even
~ frequently word by word.
> The Gospel of Mark should never have been given the title of a
> 'synoptic gospel' since it leaves out major principal parts of what is
> in the Gospel of Matthew, but Mark does partially report on the words
> of the Messiah and the events of his baptism and death. But again, the
> Gospel of Mark again is extremely brief and omits much about what
> occurred after the resurrection.
The Gospel of Mark is the mother of the Synoptic Gospels. It provides
the basis for the other two. Like many apologists with whom I have
discussed this matter, you seem to be under the impression that the
differences absolve the charge of copying. If Matthew copied Mark word
for word, Matthew would simply be another copy of "Mark", produced by
a copyist, not a writer. Your thinking doesn't even allow the
possibility of plagiarism. It is the plethora of similarities that
show, beyond any reasonable doubt, the interdependence of these three
documents. Coincidence is probabilistically prohibitive. With the
book, "Gospel Parallels" (Burton and Throckmorton) the problem becomes
apparent just in the index. Matthew and Luke will follow Mark, then
one or the other (or both) will go off and do his own thing, but will
always return to the point in Mark where that writer left off. Of the
100 times that there is a parallel, Mark is present in all but one of
them. Matthew and Luke have a lot of stuff that isn't in Mark, but
they don't form parallels when presenting it.
===========================================
Participants Parallels
==========================================
Mark with Matthew and Luke 59
Mark with Matthew (no Luke) 27
Mark with Luke (no Matthew) 13
Matthew with Luke (no Mark) 1
---
Total 100
==========================================
> Furthermore, Matthew calls the appearance encountered by Mary
> Magdalene an "angel", but Mark calls him a "man":
Over and over Matthew embellishes with the wonderful and the
fantastic. In that respect, Matthew was the least credible of the
three - not to say that any are credible. The purpose of Matthew
wasn't to simply be copy of Mark. That was a job for the copyists (the
publishers back then) not the job of a Gospel writer.
Additional material doesn't help your case, especially when they
form contradictions. Because Matthew and Luke wanted to include
post-resurrection appearances, they would want to make changes before
that in preparation. As I said earlier, Mark which properly ends at
16:8, contains no post-resurrection appearances, so if Matthew and
Luke wanted to include them, they were on their own. Matthew, who has
the post-resurrection appearances (to the Apostles) in Galilee echoes
the markan/angelic instruction (16:7) for the Apostles to proceed to
Galilee, where Jesus was to be going before them. But Luke wanted the
Apostles in Jerusalem, so he took the markan instruction and altered
it:
=================================================================
Mark 16:6-7 | Luke 24:6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(i) "you are looking" [Mk] | "Why do you look" [Lk]
(ii) "He has been raised" [Mk] | "but has risen" [Lk]
(iii) "he is not here" [Mk] | "He is not here" [Lk]
(iv) "just as he told you"[Mk] | "Remember how he told you" [Lk]
(v) "to Galilee" [Mk] | "in Galilee" [Lk]
==================================================================
Despite the differences, the scenario, location, dialogue
and similarities show that those quotes represent parallel verses.
Those differences set the stage for Luke's wide divergence. In
Mark, the message from the angel was a reminder that Jesus had
told the Apostles that he would go before them into Galilee
(75 miles away) where they should go to meet him (also Matthew
28:7). In Luke it's a variation, a reminder of what Jesus
allegedly told them when he was still in Galilee, with no
suggestion that the Apostles should leave Jerusalem. Accordingly,
on that same day of the resurrection, Luke's Apostles meet Jesus
in Jerusalem and he commands them to remain in Jerusalem till
(at Pentecost) they receive the power from on high (24:9).
> Neither does the Gospel of Mark explain why this young apparently calm
> man caused them to be "affrighted" (Mark 16:5), but we can understand
> why people (the keepers of the tomb) fainted at the sight of the
> "angel of the Lord".
Irrelevant.
> However, the Gospel of Mark DOES confirm that the Messiah told the
> APOSTLES only to preach his message to all nations (again MARK was NOT
> an apostle):
Mark had no post-resurrection appearances, that is a rather bizarre
omission for _any_ Gospel writer, if those appearances really
happened. All these subsequent anecdotes do, is show, that without
Mark present, the other two stop being synoptic.
> Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat,
> and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because
> they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
> Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach
> the gospel to every creature.
> Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
> that believeth not shall be damned.
Those verses are a later addition to Mark, no doubt to try to fix up
the embarrassment over Mark's omission of the post-resurrection
appearances. There are two places where Luke and Matthew diverge
greatly. The are the beginning and end of their respective Gospels,
because Mark has no birth narrative and no post-resurrection
appearacnce accounts.
> The Gospel of Mark does NOT give a summary of "the main points" (since
> it leaves out much of what was in Matthew as I explained above), but
> of the main events that Mark happened to see or heard of from others,
> likely Peter.
Linda, no one is disputing that Matthew added stuff not found in Mark
and I even said that in the first post. Adding stuff doesn't clear
plagiarism. That there is copying between Matthew and Mark is beyond
any reasonable doubt and almost just as certain is that Mark was
written first. Matthew, of course, made changes and added material,
otherwise what would be the point?
> I don't need the Apostle Matthew's words proven to me by the consensus
> and corroboration of the NON-eyewitnesses (i.e. the Evangelist Mark
> and Doctor Luke) to the personal teachings of the Messiah.
Actually you do need Mark, because Matthew copied from Mark.
> If anyone else does, that is their "Problem", not mine.
It's not just 'anyone' else, Linda. In biblical scholarship it is well
realised as being a serious problem.
> > > Mark T is speaking from ignorance of what is contained in both the
> > > gospels, and/or just prefers the Gospel of Mark because of what it
> > > leaves out, which he rejects.
> You would do better to regard the writings of the true apostles who
> were actually personally taught by the Messiah (that would be Peter,
> Matthew, and Jude) and quit relying upon the writings of these present-
> day authors (and especially Mark T's misunderstandings);
You really don't get it, do you? I am not presenting Mark T's ideas.
This comes from biblical scholarship. Even the few that try to refute
it at least acknowledge the problem. You, on the other hand, are
making out that this is something cooked up in this newsgroup. As for
my dependence on Mark T, I believe I was presenting this matter
before I saw his name appear in the newsgroup.
> authors who have NOT done a careful analysis or comparison themselves
> of the contents of the Scriptures, and just feed off of each others'
> writings, adding error upon error, and preaching what turns out to be
> false.
So the biblical professor of New Testament studies, whom I linked, was
just feeding off Mark T's ideas? Linda, I have recommended the book to
you that has he Synoptic Gospels side by side, in columns. Now instead
of telling me I need to investigate the matter, you need to
investigate it. You clearly have no idea at all what the Synoptic
issue is all about.
http://www.colby.edu/rel/2gh/importanceofsp.htm
~ The Synoptic Problem
~ In recent centuries scholars have wondered what that relationship
~ is. This has led to one of the major unsolved issues in Gospel
~ Studies:
~ The Synoptic Problem. We will state the problem succinctly. How
~ can one explain the considerable similarity of three literary works
~ to one another (Matthew, Mark and Luke), and at the same time, how
~ can one account for the differences in spite of the extensive
~ agreements?[ii]
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
I
> One of the problems I have is the reference in Matthew to Isiah 53.
> This is such a difficult problem I have had to conclude it is a write in
> ...
> or a rewrite.
The Isaiah passages in Matthew are definitely a rewrite. Matthew used the
Greek Septuagint version of the Tanakh and wrote his gospel in Greek.
> 2) This and several other verses make reference to the Septuagint ... the
> greek translation of the Hebrew. This is incompatible with a book written
> in
> Hebrew.
> You have the real deal - not translations. Why would a hebrew reader use
> greek references and why would hebrew readers accept greek distortions?
The fact that Matthew uses Greek rather than Hebrew and seems unaware of the
Hebrew meaning of the passage means that Matthew cannot be one of the Jewish
apostles of Jesus pre-70 CE. Matthew's audience weren't Jews but Gentiles.
Matthew's gospel was written 80 -100 CE in Antioch. Matthew's gospel
portrays division between Jews and Christians (Jews who believed that Jesus
was the human messiah) which was not there with Jesus and his apostles
pre-70 CE in Jerusalem.
> 3a) Theological problems ... the first theological problem is that this
> was
> supposedly a sign ... as it reads G_d himself will give you a sign" but
> this
> was not supposed to be given to the jews.
> 3b) This sign requires faith that JC was a virgin. Now please note the
> issue
> is not "was JC a virgin" but rather "Have faith that JC was a virgin"
> which
> is a different matter. If JC has blue eyes - that is one thing but to say
> "have faith that JC had blue eyes" then it has a different connotation.
> Theologically - "faith" in the virgin birth is contrary to everything else
> recorded including the book of Matthew.
That is from Isaiah 9 not from Isaiah 53.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isaiah 9
5. For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given us.
And authority has settled on his shoulders.
He has been named
"The Mighty God is planning grace;
The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler" -
6. In token of abundament authority
And of peace without limit
Upon David's throne and kingdom,
That it may be firmly established
In justice and in equity
Now and evermore.
The zeal of the LORD of Hosts
Shall bring this to pass.
From the "Tanakh" (JPS:1985)
This is like naming a child Jesus / Yeshua / Joshua. It is a COMMON name
with a meaning that does not indicate that the child WITH that name is God.
Every person named Jesus / Yeshua / Joshua is NOT God. In the same manner,
every child named "The Mighty God is planning grace;
The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler" is NOT God. In the same manner,
Peter means "rock" but a child called "Peter" is not a literal rock.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 3d) this virgin birth then is used to call upon Isiah 53 to claim the
> promises.
> 3e) the promises given to the child seen at that time were not really
> given
> to the child at that time but actually given to JC instead.
> 3f) and these promises (in the name) show JC as G_d and in charge and thus
> prove JC is G_d and in charge because he is a virgin which is accepted in
> faith based upon misreading the hebrew - because you are reading it from
> the greek translation instead of the original.
Yep!
Matthew FASHIONED his gospel around a rewriting of Moses' life / Exodus.
Matthew's Jesus had to gbe seen as GREATER THAN MOSES. Everything that
Moses did , Jesus had to have done - and if Jesus HADN'T really done it,
then it had to be INVENTED by Matthew.
Read Matthew's gospel with the Torah side by side.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MATTHEW'S INTRODUCTION
Matthew 1 ... Geneology referring to Abraham in lots of 14
Matthew 2 .... Micah 5:2
Matthew 2:1-2 .... "wise men & star" ONLY in Matthew.
Matthew 2:13-15 ... Genesis 46
Matthew 2:16 ... Exodus 21
Matthew 2:17-18 ... Genesis 35:18-20
Matthew 2:17 .... Isaiah 42:1
Matthew 4 ... Exodus 16:4
MATTHEW'S GENESIS
Matthew 5 ... 1. GENESIS ... mountain top "Greater than Moses" .. "you have
heard that it was said ...but I say ..."
Matthew 5:17 ... "law & prophets" ONLY in Matthew
Matthew 8:25 ... "lord / boss" (Mark had "teacher / rabbi")
MATTHEW'S EXODUS
Matthew 10:5 ... 2. EXODUS
Matthew 12:40 ... 1 day and 2 nights: 3.00pm Friday to dawn Sunday.
MATTHEW'S LEVITICUS
Matthew 13 ... 3. LEVITICUS
Matthew 13:43 ... Daniel 2:3
Matthew 13:52 ... AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL (what Matthew is doing in his gospel)
Matthew 13 55 .... carpenter added as Jesus' father
Matthew 14:21 ... A. FEEDING JEWS
Matthew 15:38 ... B. FEEDING GENTILES
Matthew 17: 4 ... "lord / boss" (Mark had "master")
Matthew 17:1-8 ... Exodus 34:29-35
Matthew 7:27 ... "fish with coin" ONLY in Matthew
MATTHEW'S NUMBERS
Matthew 18:1 ......4. NUMBERS
MATTHEW'S DEUTERONOMY
Matthew 24:1 ..... 5. DEUTERONOMY
Matthew 26:32 ... meet in Gallilee
Matthew 27 ... Psalm 22
Matthew 28:2 ... "earthquake & angel" ONLY in Matthew
Matthew 28:7, 9-10 ... "angel and Jesus" SAME message - meet in Gallilee ...
Matthew 28:11-15 ... "stolen rumour" ONLY in Matthew
Matthew 28:18 ... Daniel 7:14
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> However, the key is this theological argument - faith in WHAT?
> JC states what people are to hold in faith.
> And the virgin birth, and trinity and all sort of other ideas are NOT to
> be
> faith issues.
> Even resurrection from the dead is not a faith issue.
What did Jesus have faith in?
It WASN'T himself or the bible!
Jesus had faith in God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jesus himself is not the proper object of faith.
...
Jesus called on his followers to trust the Father, to believe in God's
domain or reign. The proper object of faith inspired by Jesus is to trust
what Jesus trusted. For that reasonm, I am not primarily interested in
affirmations about Jesus but in the truths that inspired and informed Jesus.
To call for faith in Jesus is to subsititute the agent for the reality, the
proclaimer for the proclaimed. ...
Jesus pointed to God's domain, something he did not create, something he
did not control. I want to discover what Jesus saw, or heard, or sensed that
was so enchanting, so mezmerizing, so challenging that it held Jesus in its
spell. And I do not want to bhe misled by what his followers did: instead of
looking to see what he saw, his devoted disciples tended to stare at the
pointing finger. Jesus himself should notbe, must not be, the object of
faith. That would be to repeat the idolatry of the first believers.
From Robert W. Funk "Honest To Jesus: Jesus for a New Millenium" (Hodder &
Stoughton: 1996) pp. 304-305
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> JC tells you what are items of faith. Listen to him - I figure he knows
> what
> he is talking about.
Jesus was a Jew and gave a very Jewish answer about the GREATEST
commandments ... and Jesus' answer was the same as other rabbis of his day
.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God (YAHWEH not Yahweh's human messiah)
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is
the FIRST and GREATEST COMMANDMENT. And the SECOND is like it: 'Love your
neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these TWO
COMMANDMENTS." - Matthew 22:37-40
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing
that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the
COMMANDMENTS, which is the MOST IMPORTANT?" "The MOST IMPORTANT ONE,"
answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God (YAHWEH not
Yahweh's human messiah) the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God (YAHWEH not
Yahweh's human messiah) with all your heart and with all your soul and with
all your mind and with all your strength.' (Mark12:28-30)
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying,
"Teacher, WHAT SHALL I DO TO INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE?"
He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read?" And he
answered, "You shall love the Lord your God (YAHWEH not Yahweh's human
messiah) with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your
strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." And he
said to him, "You have answered right; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE." (Luke
10:25-28)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These are repeated THREE TIMES. They are in each of the synoptic
gospels. These two greatest commandments do not mention anything about the
finite human Jesus of Nazareth, The Messiah ...or about being born again ...
or about Christians following any of the man made "fundamentals" ... or
about Christians having to believe in the bible ... or about Christians
having to be fundamentalist / orthodox ... or about belief in Jesus as God
... or in belief about Jesus being resuscitated from the dead .. or belief
in Jesus flying through the sky to heaven ... or about attending church.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> If (instead) I wanted to spread my ideas - i would find verses to prove JC
> was the messiah.
> There is no record of the verses JC claimed about himself.
> There are record after record trying to prove JC was the messiah - and
> these do not stand up under scrutiny.
The ONLY verses that Jesus quoted were from the Tanakh which spoke about God
and how to act righteously in relation to God.
> Solution - men trying to promote their own ideas in proving JC was the
> messiah.
> Ergo Isiah 53 was men seeking to do things their way - rewriting the
> original concepts and emphasis to prove "their points."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isaiah 53 Tanakh (JPS: 1985)
"Who can believe hat we have heard?
Upon whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
For he has grown, by His favor, like a tree crown,
Like a tree trunk out of arid ground.
He had no form or beauty, that we should look at him:
No charm, that we should find him pleasing.
He was despuised, shunned by men,
A man of suffering, familiar with disease.
As one who hid his face from us,
He was despised, we held him of no account.
Yet it was our sickness he was bearing,
Our suffering that he endured.
We accounted him plagued,
Smitten and afflicted by Goed;
But he was wounded because of our sins,
Cruched because of our iniquities.
He bore the chatisement that made us whol;e,
And by his bruises we are healed.
We all went astray like sheep,
Each going his own way;
And the LORD visitied upon him
The guilt of all of us."
He was maltreated, yet he was submissive,
He did not open his mouth;
Like a sheep being led to slaughter,
Like a ewe, dumb before those who shear her,
He did not open his mouth.
By oppressive judgement he was taken away,
Who could describe his abode?
For he was cut off from the land of the living
Through the sin of my people, who deserved the punishment.
And his grave was set among the wicked,
And with the ricch, in his death -
Though he had done no injustice
And had spoken no falsehood.
But the LORD chose to crush him by diease,
That, if he made himself an offering for guilt,
He might see offspring and have long life,
And that through him the LORD's purpose might prosper.
Out of his anguish he shall see it;
He shall enjoy it to the full through his devotion.
My righteous servant makes the many righteous,
It is their punishment he bears;
Assuredly, I will give him the many as his portion,
He shall receive the multitude as his spoil.
For he exposed himself to death
And was numbered among the inners,
Whereas he bore the guilt of the many
And made intercession for sinners.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isaiah 53
At JEWS FOR JUDAISM, we frequently encounter questions from Jews who are
involved in or considering Christianity. Among the questions, one
chapter of our Jewish Scriptures keeps coming up: Isaiah 53. Wasn't the
Prophet, in fact, referring to Jesus in this chapter? ....
A. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
... Jesus' own disciples didn't view Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy. For
example, after Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16), he is
informed that Jesus will be killed (Matt. 16:21). His response: "God forbid
it, lord! This shall never happen to you" (Matt. 16:22). See, also, Mk.
9:31-32; Mk. 16:10-11; Jn. 20:9. Even Jesus didn't see Isaiah 53 as crucial
to his messianic claims - why else did he call the Jews children of the
devil for not believing in him before the alleged resurrection (Jn.
8:39-47)? And why did he later request that God "remove this cup from me"
(Mk. 14:36) - didn't he know that a "removal of the cup" would violate the
gentile understanding of Isaiah 53?
.... even if we accept the gentile Christian interpretation of
Isaiah 53, where is it indicated (either in Isaiah 53 or anywhere else in
our Jewish Scriptures) that you must believe in this "Messiah" to get the
benefits?
B. CONTEXT
... Look at the setting in which Isaiah 53 occurs. Earlier on in Isaiah,
God had predicted exile and calamity for the Jewish people. Chapter 53,
however, occurs in the midst of Isaiah's "Messages of Consolation", which
tell of the restoration of Israel to a position of prominence and a
vindication of their status as God's chosen people. In chapter 52, for
example, Israel is described as "oppressed without cause" (v.4) and "taken
away" (v.5), yet God promises a brighter future ahead, one in which Israel
will again prosper and be redeemed in the sight of all the nations (v.1-3,
8-12).
Chapter 54 further elaborates upon the redemption which awaits the
nation of Israel. Following immediately after chapter 53's promise of a
reward for God's servant in return for all of its suffering (53:10-12),
chapter 54 describes an unequivocally joyous fate for the Jewish people.
Speaking clearly of the Jewish people and their exalted status (even
according to all Christian commentaries), chapter 54 ends as follows: "`This
is the heritage of the servants of the L-rd and their vindication is from
Me,' declares the L-rd."
C. ISAIAH 53
In the original Hebrew texts, there are no chapter divisions, and Jew
and Christian alike agree that chapter 53 is actually a continuation of the
prophecy which begins at 52:13. Accordingly, our analysis must begin at that
verse.
52:13 "Behold, My servant will prosper." Israel in the singular is
called God's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9;
44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10) - the
Messiah is not. Other references to Israel as God's servant include Jer.
30:10 (note that in Jer. 30:17, the servant Israel is regarded by the
nations as an outcast, forsaken by God, as in Isa. 53:4); Jer. 46:27-28; Ps.
136:22; Lk. 1:54. ALSO: Given the Christian view that Jesus is God, is God
His own servant?
52:15 - 53:1 "So shall he (the servant) startle many nations, the
kings will stand speechless; For that which had not been told them they
shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. Who would
believe what we have heard?" Quite clearly, the nations and their kings will
be amazed at what happens to the "servant of the L-rd," and they will say
"who would believe what we have heard?". 52:15 tells us explicitly that it
is the nations of the world, the gentiles, who are doing the talking in
Isaiah 53. See, also, Micah 7:12-17, which speaks of the nations'
astonishment when the Jewish people again blossom in the Messianic age.
53:1 "And to whom has the arm of the L-rd been revealed?" In
Isaiah, and throughout our Scriptures, God's "arm" refers to the physical
redemption of the Jewish people from the oppression of other nations (see,
e.g., Isa. 52:8-12; Isa. 63:12; Deut. 4:34; Deut. 7:19; Ps. 44:3).
53:3 "Despised and rejected of men." While this is clearly
applicable to Israel (see Isa. 60:15; Ps. 44:13-14), it cannot be reconciled
with the New Testament account of Jesus, a man who was supposedly "praised
by all" (Lk. 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25), who would
later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem
(Matt. 21:9-11). Even as he was taken to be crucified, a multitude bemoaned
his fate (Lk. 23:27). Jesus had to be taken by stealth, as the rulers feared
"a riot of the people" (Mk. 14:1-2).
53:3 "A man of pains and acquainted with disease." Israel's
adversities are frequently likened to sickness - see, e.g., Isa. 1:5-6; Jer.
10:19; Jer 30:12.
53:4 "Surely our diseases he carried and our pains he bore." In
Matt. 8:17, this is correctly translated, and said to be literally (not
spiritually) fulfilled in Jesus' healing of the sick, a reading inconsistent
with the Christian mistranslation of 53:4 itself.
53:4 "Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of G- D and
afflicted." See Jer. 30:17 - of God's servant Israel (30:10), it is said by
the nations, "It is Zion; no one cares for her."
53:5 "But he was wounded from (NOTE: not for) our transgressions,
he was crushed from (AGAIN: not for) our iniquities." Whereas the nations
had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for its
sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant's sufferings stemmed from
their actions and sinfulness. This theme is further developed throughout our
Jewish Scriptures - see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; Jer. 10:25. ALSO: Note that the
Messiah "shall not fail nor be crushed till he has set the right in the
earth" (Isa. 42:4).
53:7 "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open
his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is
silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth." Note that in the
prior chapter (Isa. 52), Israel is said to have been oppressed and taken
away without cause (52:4-5). A similar theme is developed in Psalm 44,
wherein King David speaks of Israel's faithfulness even in the face of
gentile oppression (44:17- 18) and describes Israel as "sheep to be
slaughtered" in the midst of the unfaithful gentile nations (44:22,11).
Regarding the claim that Jesus "did not open his mouth" when faced
with oppression and affliction, see Matt. 27:46, Jn. 18:23, 36-37.
53:8 "From dominion and judgement he was taken away." Note the
correct translation of the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to
mistranslate, since - by Jesus' own testimony - he never had any rights to
rulership or judgement, at least not on the "first coming." See, e.g., Jn.
3:17; Jn. 8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.
53:8 "He was cut off out of the land of the living."
53:9 "His grave was assigned with wicked men." See Ez. 37:11-14,
wherein Israelis described as "cut off" and God promises to open its
"graves" and bring Israel back into its own land. Other examples of
figurative deaths include Ex. 10:17; 2 Sam. 9:8; 2 Sam. 16:9.
53:8 "From my peoples' sins, there was injury to them." Here the
Prophet makes absolutely clear, to anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew,
that the oppressed Servant is a collective Servant, not a single individual.
The Hebrew word "lamoh", when used in our Scriptures, always means "to them"
never "to him" and may be found, for example, in Psalm 99:7 - "They kept his
testimonies, and the statute that He gave to them."
53:9 "And with the rich in his deaths." Perhaps King James should
have changed the original Hebrew, which again makes clear that we are
dealing with a collective Servant, i.e., Israel, which will "come to life"
when the exile ends (Ez. 37:14).
53:9 "He had done no violence." See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk.
19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51; then judge for yourself whether
this passage is truly consistent with the New Testament account of Jesus.
53:10 "He shall see his seed." The Hebrew word for "seed", used in
this verse, always refers to physical descendants in our Jewish Scriptures.
See, e.g., Gen. 12:7; Gen. 15:13; Gen. 46:6; Ex. 28:43. A different word,
generally translated as "sons", is used to refer to spiritual descendants
(see Deut. 14:1, e.g.).
53:10 "He will prolong his days." Not only did Jesus die young,
but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God?
53:11 "With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will
cause many to be just." Note again the correct translation: the Servant will
cause many to be just, he will not "justify the many." The Jewish mission is
to serve as a "light to the nations" which will ultimately lead the world to
a knowledge of the one true God, this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech.
8:23) and by instructing the nations in God's Law (Isa. 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3).
53:12 "Therefore, I will divide a portion to him with the great,
and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty." If Jesus is God, does the
idea of reward have any meaning? Is it not rather the Jewish people - who
righteously bore the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God (Ps.
44) - who will be rewarded, and this in the manner described more fully in
Isaiah chapters 52 and 54?
from http://jewsforjudaism.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Pre- and Post-Easter Jesus
Understanding and knowing Jesus involves history, tradition, and
experience. - Marcus Borg
The pre-Easter Jesus means:
a.. The historical Jesus
b.. Jesus of Nazareth
c.. A first century Galilean Jew
d.. A figure of the past
The post-Easter Jesus means:
What Jesus became after his death, the Jesus of Christian experience and
tradition.
In Christian experience people continue to experience Jesus as a living
reality, as a figure of the present; as a spiritual living divine reality
In Christian tradition: Jesus is increasingly spoken of as a divine reality
and eventually seen as "very God of very God."
It is crucial to make this distinction, says Borg, or Jesus becomes unreal,
incredible and inaccessible.
Compare pre- and post-Easter Jesus
Pre-Easter Jesus / Post-Easter Jesus
4 B.C.E. to 30 C.E. / 30 C.E. to present
Corporeal, human being of flesh and blood Spiritual / non-material
reality
Finite and mortal / Infinite, eternal
Human / Divine
A Jewish peasant / King of Kings and Lord of Lords
Figure of the past / Figure of the present
Jesus of Nazareth / Jesus Christ
Monotheistic Jew / Becomes the second person of the trinity, "God with a
human face"
Galilean Jew of the first century / "The Face of God" (metaphor based on
2 Cor. 4:6 Beholding the glory of God in the face of Christ)
From http://www.united.edu/portrait/compare.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The ONLY real Jesus is the pre-Easter Jesus.
All else is a FICTION.
Terry Cross
You DON'T have the real deal. All Hebrew versions of Matthew are
speculative reconstructions of a manuscript never found.
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/shemtovweb.html
TCross
I
> you do not believe that God is the Triune God of Father, Son and
> Holy Spirit in Unity. So Jesus did not forgive sins???? Is that what you
> think?
I do not believe in a "trinity" of God consisting of
- Father (Yahweh)
- Son (the finite huiman Jesus of Nazareth)
- Holy Spirit (Yahweh's shekinah glory)
The finite human Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew, forgave the sins of those who
sinned against him as in the Lord's Prayer ... "as WE forgive those who sin
against us". (Jesus of Nazareth is included in the "WE" of that phrase.)
> > And was Jesus Christ wrong when He told Nicodemus.
> > "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
> > ***that whoseoever believes in Him shall not perish but shall have
> > everlating Life***?
> NEVER stated by the historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth ....
>
> Never stated because you do not want to believe it?
Never stated because IT NEVER HAPPENED IN TIME / SPACE HISTORY.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The fourth evangelist's style of speech and comment is exemplified in the
remarks in 3:31-36. These remarks are the creation of the evangelist.
There is no suggestion that they should be attributed to Jesus. John 3:
14-21 is written in the same style and with comparable content. had these
verses been included ijn quotation marks as words allegedly spoken by Jesus,
the Fellowship would of course have labeled them black *[ meaning - Jesus
did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or
different tradition.]
It should be recalled that quotation marks do not appear in the original
Greek manuscripts of any of the gospels; most punctuation marks have been
provided by modern editors and translators.
John 3:14-21, in the judgement of the Fellows, should not be enclosed in
quotation marks. The Scholar's Version places closing quotation marks at
the end of v. 13, although some modern translartions incorrectly include vv.
14-21 in Jesus' quoted speech.
from Robert W Funk, Roy W Hoover and the Jesus Seminar "The Five Gospels"
(McMillan: 1993) p. 409
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where is YOUR EVIDENCE that it really was stated in time / space history by
Jesus of Nazareth?????????
"The gospels are now assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus
is embellished by mythic elements that express the church's faith in him,
and by plausible fictions that enhance the telling of the gospel for 1st
century listeners who knew about divine men and miracle workers first hand.
Supposedly historical elements in these narratives must be proved so." - the
Jesus Seminar
Waiting for YOUR PROOF.
> You are using modern critical literary analysis for a text that is
> nearly 2000 years old to 'prove'
Correct!
What is YOUR PROOF to the contrary????
#####################################################
1. GOD'S EXISTENCE
GOD DOES NOT EXIST
WHAT IS GOD?
"Ground of all being"
2. THE BIBLE
BIBLE CONSTRUCTION
EARLY CHRISTIANITY
3. JESUS OF NAZARETH
JESUS IS NOT GOD
4. METHODOLOGY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE FOUR SOURCE THEORY:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RULES OF WRITTEN EVIDENCE:
CLUSTERING & CONTEXTING
REVISION & COMMENTARY
FALSE ATTRIBUTION
DIFFICULT SAYINGS
CHRISTIANISING JESUS
DISTINCTIVE DISCOURSE
THE LACONIC SAGE
AGENDA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> John 1 - 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
1:1-18
In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom.
The divine word and wisdom was there with God,
and it was what God was.
It was there with God fgrom the beginning.
Everything came to be by means of it;
nothing exists came to be without its agency.
In it was life,
and this life was the light of humanity.
Light was shining in darkness, and darkness did not master it.
There appeared a man sent from God named John. he came to testify - to
testify to the light - so everyone would believe through him. He was not
the light; he came only to attest to the light.
Genuine light - the kind that provides light for everyone
- was coming into the world.
Although it was in the world,
and the world came about through its agency,
the world did not recognize it.
It came to its own place,
but its own people were not receptive to it.
But to all who did embrace it,
to those who believed in it,
it gave the right to become children of God.
They were not born from a sexual union,
not from physical desire,
and not from male willfulness:
they were born of God.
The divine word and wisdom became human
and made itself at home among us.
We have seen its majesty,
majesty appropriate
to a father's only son,
brimming with generosity and truth.
John testifies on his behalf and has called out, "This is the one I was
talking about when I said, 'He who is to come after me is actually my
superior, because he was there before me.'"
From his richness
all of us benefited -
one gift after another.
Law was given through Moses;
mercy and truth came through Jesus the Anointed.
No-one has ever seen God;
the only son, an intimate of the Father - he has disclosed (him).
From Funk, Hoover and the Jesus Seminar "The Five Gospels" (Macmillan: 1993)
pp. 401 - 402
Note "it" not "He".
The text doesn't indicate that Jesus is God but that Jesus had the "divine
word and wisdom" OF God within him.
This is in line with Islam, Judaism and the early Jewish Christians pre
70CE.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Linda Lee
> "Sean McHugh" wrote:
> > It pretty much was. Matthew uses about 90% of Mark and Luke uses
> > about half that. Both Matthew and Luke add their own material.
>
> >> Mark begins with John's baptism of the Messiah. Matthew begins with
> >> the miraculous birth (Matt. 1:18,
>
> > Mark T is correct. Matthew starts two chapters before Mark, as does
> > Luke. However before using Mark, at chapters 3, Matthew and Luke have
> > diverged greatly and are at odds with each other, not only in terms of
> > story, but even in geography. In chapters 3, where they use Mark,
> > Matthew and Luke lock into harmony, hence the term, 'Synoptics'. This
> > can be clearly seen in a book that has the first three Gospels side by
> > side in columns. I recommend "Gospel Parallels", by Burton and
> > Throckmorton.
> ...
> > No, Mark T is quite familiar with the 'Synoptic Problem'. It appears
> > to be news to you. You can find out more about it here at Bible.org:
> >http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=669
>
> Yep to all!
Yup, yup, yup ...very convincing.
>
> My detractors don't even know how their preciopus little bible was put
> together.
It is not *your* detractors "I"/Mark T; it is called debate on the
issues, and you've conveniently ignored where Sean's points were
soundly refuted.
Linda Lee
Of course Matthew didn't need to "copy" from Mark. Matthew was an
apostle; Mark was not. Matthew was an eyewitness; there is no
evidence that Mark was an eyewitness, but it is likely Mark repeated
what Peter (who calls Marcus i.e. Mark "my son" - I Pet. 5:13) told
him of a part of what Peter was taught. Use some logic.
>
> > > > Mark begins with John's baptism of the Messiah. Matthew begins with
> > > > the miraculous birth (Matt. 1:18,
> > > Mark T is correct.
> > Baloney.
>
> He is a search on "Synoptic Problem":
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2df3v7
>
> See that it produces 61,000 hits. When you say "Baloney", you really
> have no way of knowing. You appear to be oblivious to the Synoptic
> Problem and seem determined to keep it that way.
I am aware of what is called the "Synoptic Problem", which they've
manufactured out of ignorance and illogic.
> This isn't something
> that Mark T (or I) just cooked up; the Synoptic Problem is well known
> in biblical scholarship.
>
> > > Matthew starts two chapters before Mark, as does
> > > Luke.
> > And the Gospel of the Evangelist Mark leaves out MAJOR teachings that
> > are in the report of the APOSTLE Matthew, in effect Mark's gospel
> > denies the Messiah was seen as a miraculous birth and King of the Jews
> > and fulfillment of the prophecies of the expected Messiah and Saviour;
> > those OMISSIONS are why NON-believers prefer the Gospel of Mark.
>
> They only became 'omissions' in Mark when they were added in Matthew.
Remain ignorant; your choice.
Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that
they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made
blind.
Joh 9:40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these
words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no
sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
>
> > Mark T (posting as "I") has posted one of his usual inaccuracies
> > here. Mark's gospel was NOT "repeated" in Matthew's gospel.
>
> Over 90% of Mark appears in Matthew.
>
> > Mark begins with John's baptism of the Messiah. Matthew begins with
> > the miraculous birth (Matt. 1:18, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was
> > on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before
> > they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost") and
> > genealogy of the Messiah and the reason he was given his name; it goes
> > on with him being born in Bethlehem fulfilling a prophesy of the
> > Messiah as "King of the Jews" (Matt. 2:1-2), and has him called from
> > Egypt fulfilling another prophesy (Matt. 2:15), and shows him being
> > worshipped from birth (Matt. 2:11, "And when they were come into the
> > house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down,
> > and worshipped him").
>
<snip>
I
>> > No, Mark T is quite familiar with the 'Synoptic Problem'. It appears
>> > to be news to you. You can find out more about it here at Bible.org:
>> >http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=669
>>
>> Yep to all!
....
> Yup, yup, yup ...very convincing.
Yup it was all true as stated by many scholars and exactly as I have studied
at university level.
" The reversal regarding who bears the burden of proof. The gospels are now
assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is embellished by
mythic elements that express the church's faith in him, and by plausible
fictions that enhance the telling of the gospel for 1st century listeners
who knew about divine men and miracle woprkers first hand. Supposedly
historical elements in these narratives must be proved so." - Jesus Semionar
Where is YOUR SCHOLARL:Y PROOF??????????????
>> My detractors don't even know how their precious little bible was put
>> together.
> you've conveniently ignored where Sean's points were
> soundly refuted.
That's where you are mistaken. Sean's points WEREN'T "soundly defeated".
You gave NO PRROOF and certainly no SCHOLARLY proof.
What is YOUR PROOF to the contrary????
I DO mean SCHOLARLY PROOF and not just a vomit of bible verses.
#####################################################
1. GOD'S EXISTENCE
GOD DOES NOT EXIST
WHAT IS GOD?
"Ground of all being"
2. THE BIBLE
BIBLE CONSTRUCTION
EARLY CHRISTIANITY
3. JESUS OF NAZARETH
JESUS IS NOT GOD
4. METHODOLOGY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE FOUR SOURCE THEORY:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RULES OF WRITTEN EVIDENCE:
CLUSTERING & CONTEXTING
REVISION & COMMENTARY
FALSE ATTRIBUTION
DIFFICULT SAYINGS
CHRISTIANISING JESUS
DISTINCTIVE DISCOURSE
THE LACONIC SAGE
AGENDA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
> Of course Matthew didn't need to "copy" from Mark. Matthew was an
> apostle
NOPE!
Matthew quoted from the GREEK Septuagint rather than from the HEBREW Tanakh
which means Matthew DIDN'T KNOW the Hebrew. THat fact alone means that
Matthew WASN'T a Jew and WASN'T a JEWISH apostle of Jesus.
> I am aware of what is called the "Synoptic Problem"
NO, you seem utterly IGNORANT of it .....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TWO DIFFERING PORTRAITS OF JESUS:
1. The Synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew & Luke)
- Jesus speaks in parables and aphorisms
- God's imperial rule is the theme of Jesus' teaching
2. John's Gospel
- Jesus speaks in long, involved discourses
- Jesus is the theme of his own teaching
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE FOUR SOURCE THEORY:
Matthew used Mark, Q, and is own special source called M.
Luke also used Mark and Q, but had another source called L, which Mathew did
not have.
The material in M & L probably comes from oral tradition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where is YOUR SCHOLARLY PROOF to the contary??????????????
" The reversal regarding who bears the burden of proof. The gospels are now
assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is embellished by
mythic elements that express the church's faith in him, and by plausible
fictions that enhance the telling of the gospel for 1st century listeners
who knew about divine men and miracle woprkers first hand. Supposedly
historical elements in these narratives must be proved so." - Jesus Semionar
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 8, 11:20 am, "I" wrote:
>> swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> > Five Fundamentals of the Christian faith
>>
>What I gave in the website was for discussion - agreements and
>disagreements.
>
>> There are NO fundamentals of Christianity.
>> Neither Tom, Vera, Gladys nor Chucky can answer the following ..........
>>
>We can never answer to your satisfaction because your views are so
>different to those who accept the Biblical teaching.
That's true.
I hope you can answer some questions for me.
>The basic Biblical fundamental (essential) =
>John 3 : 16
>For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
>so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but shall have
>everlasting life.
Why is it essential that you believe God needs a ritual?
>Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
>For by grace are (we) saved, through faith
>and that not of (our)selves: it is the gift of God;
>Not of works lest any (one) should boast.
>and other such verses.
Why is God's unconditional gift conditional on us being naive?
>I can't see that a person has any claim to a Christian faith if those
>verses are not its foundation.
Mark is no Christian.
>If any person who holds those verses as essential but doesn't go on in
>good works then that person is described in 1 Corinthians 3 : 13, 15
>
>v. 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest; for the day shall
>declare it,
>because it shall be revealed by fire;
>and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is;
>v. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss,
>but he himself shall be saved, yet so by fire.
>
>And if there are any complaints that females are not mentioned
>the fact is the female is included with the male.
>
>The problem has been in the Christian faith that certain leaders have
>specified what the good works should be in religious observances,
>doctrines (heresies and traditions) and works of charity towards
>others.
>And in that teaching the leaders are akin to the apostles
>and the laity (as the non-leaders have come to be called)
>are akin to the peasants who listened to Jesus Christ and His
>apostles.
>
>My readings indicate that Christianity was developing reasonably until
>310AD and from that date additions were made to the Christian teaching
>by the Church at Rome until in the late 1300's John Wycliffe in
>England and in the early 1500's Martin Luther began their protests.
>(No mass media in those days)
>And others followed with different emphases; changed Biblical versions
>and added doctrines as they set up their teaching groups.
>
>What chance (probability ratings) is there of sorting it all out?
On a scale of 0 to 100 I rate it -1.
>I haven't the answer for I am aware that indoctrinations die hard. .
Christianity is popular because anybody can call themselves Christian.
>Gladys Swager
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Aaron
True!
While Fundamentalism disagrees with the Bible on several points, it is
hardly more demonic than other forms of Christianity. One could point
to evil influences in Roman Catholicism, Protestantism. Mormonism,
JW(ism?), Greek Orthodoxy, et cetera. All of these have elements that
oppose what the Bible says. Some points of Protestantism were
designed to oppose Catholicism rather than to uphold the Bible; so one
set of errors was traded for another. In the end, Protestantism is
more Roman Catholic than it is biblical. The dedication that the
original Fundamentalists had would have been a good thing if it had
been combined with knowledge of the Bible, but it was not.
>
>>It should be noted that "Fundamentalist Christianity" in either its
>>modern form or original form has certain problems.
>>
>>1 Belief in both the inerrancy of the Bible, divine revelation of the
>>entire Bible at the same time causes a logical impasse. First
>>Corinthians 7:25-39 is prefaced with Rabbi Shaul (Paul) saying that
>>this passage was not revealed to him by God. So either the Bible is
>>inerrant, and thise was not divinely inspired, or there is an error
>>and it was divinely inspired. Since divine revelation would preclude
>>error, we can only believe that this was not divinely revealed but
>>accurately prtrays the manmade opinion of the rabbi.
>>
>>Sola Scriptura is also problematic. Sola Scriptura is the doctrine
>>that only the Bible can be used for establishing doctrine. This was
>>invented as a justification for discrading those manmade Roman
>>Catholic dcrees that the Protestants wanted to discard. Of course,
>>since they kept many nonbiblical Roman Catholic customs, this is a bit
>>hypocritical. It becomes even more problematic as Deuteronomy
>>commands that animals slaughtered for food be killed in accordance
>>with a proceddure that God says that He has given but which appears
>>only in the Mishna (the Oral Law) which is not part of the Bible. In
>>Matthew, Messiah criticizes some Pharisees for violating the Oral Law
>>as it is recorded in the Talmud by making their tzitziyot long and
>>making their tfillin broad (not cube shaped). Of course, in this
>>case, it can be pointed out that Christians ignore the Scripture as
>>well, ignoring God's Commandmetns of tzitzit and tfillin. In
>>Ephesians, Rabbi Shaul also asserts that Messiah sanctified preforming
>>the Immersion as done in accordance with the Oral Word yet most
>>Christians don't even know that Baptism is a Jewish religious practice
>>or how it is done.
>>
>>Literal interpretation is also a problem because the Hebrew text
>>contains many phrases that are not meant to be understood literally
>>and literary devices that are not found in Western literature. So
>>what it literal to a Jew reading the Hebrew is not even seen by a
>>Christian reading an English translation. The Ancient Greek texts
>>contain many Hebrew literary devices that make literal translation
>>difficult as well. These Greek texts also contain many misused Greek
>>words that were approximations of Hebrew words, and words that seem to
>>be made up just to translate Judaic ideas fo which there were no Greek
>>words. While scholars debate the original language of these books,
>>the Judaic influence is unmistakeable. Some of the "greek-like" words
>>used in the ancient Greek texts have no clear definition, so
>>translators fill in with words that supports their personal theology.
>>This makes literal translation immpossible and without literal
>>translation, there is no basis for the belief in infallable literal
>>interpretation. There are also passages where traditional English
>>translations simply disagree with ancient Greek texts. Some passages
>>in the OT are at odds with a literal translation of the Original
>>Hebrew, but Fundamentalist Christians insist on literally interpreting
>>the translation rather than the Hebrew. So, the entire approach to
>>literal interpretation used by Fundamentalist Christianity is not
>>usable for any honest study of the Bible. Worse yet, the
>>Fundamentalist Christian approach to the Bible has led to extreme
>>devotion to anti-biblical beliefs that have cause people to turn away
>>from Theism altogether rather than simply reject Fundamentalist
>>Christianity.
>>
>
>TCross
Sean McHugh
Hi Mark,
I started to introduce 'Q' but deleted it, deciding to at try to keep
it simple for Linda. As you will recall, this started out with her
rejecting Matthew's dependence on Mark. Given the evidence that the
Matthew uses more than 90% of Mark, I see this as being by far the
most significant compositional matter. I believe that it can be dealt
with separately, though it usually isn't. The main reason is that it
is something that is much more empirically demonstrable. The layman
only needs an index to parallel Gospels to see how matches will occur
when Mark is present and won't when Mark is not. Below is linked a
page that presents such an index. Linda (as if!) or anyone else can
simply by looking, see how Mark is the common denominator with
pericope matches. Of course this isn't the only way by which we can
observe Matthew's and Luke's dependence on Mark.
The linked index is more concise than the one in the Burton and
Throckmorton book but it still well illustrates the pattern of how
Mark, despite that books shortness, needs to be there for sequential
harmonies to occur in any two of the three Synoptic Gospels. The index
is about three quarters of the way down the page:
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm
As for 'Q', I think that the worst thing was for it to have that name
because the apologist will hone in on it nearly every time, demanding
proof. The fact remains, we _know_ that there are other pericopes
common in Matthew and Luke that aren't in order. Oral tradition
provides the best explanation but I find it not that important. The
significant thing, for me at least, is that where these floating
pericopes occur between Matthew and Luke, Mark isn't there. So rather
than requiring more theory to be supported, the pericopes nominally
assigned to 'Q' provide further supportive evidence for Matthew's and
Luke's dependence on Mark for their harmonies. That is regardless of
speculation on the textual source of the floaters or what one
collectively calls them.
BTW, "Gospel Parallels" by Burton and Throckmorton is still available.
There are a couple of reviews at the bottom of the page:
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Parallels-NRSV-Comparison-Synoptic/dp/0840774842
<snip>
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>snip>
>
> I hope you can answer some questions for me.
>
> >The basic Biblical fundamental (essential) =
> >John 3 : 16
> >For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
> >so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but shall have
> >everlasting life.
>
> Why is it essential that you believe God needs a ritual?
>
What are the riruals that you believe God needs?
> >Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
> >For by grace are (we) saved, through faith
> >and that not of (our)selves: it is the gift of God;
> >Not of works lest any (one) should boast.
> >and other such verses.
>
> Why is God's unconditional gift conditional on us being naive?
>
Why do you say that to accept God's gift we need to be naive?
> >I can't see that a person has any claim to a Christian faith if those
> >verses are not its foundation.
>
> Mark is no Christian.
>
I have come to the conclusion that he is more akin to a Pseudo-Jew
= a Jew without the Temple ceremonies.
>
> >If any person who holds those verses as essential but doesn't go on in
> >good works then that person is described in 1 Corinthians 3 : 13, 15
> >v. 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest; for the day shall
> >declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire;
> >and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is;
> >v. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss,
> >but he himself shall be saved, yet so by fire.
>
> >And if there are any complaints that females are not mentioned
> >the fact is the female is included with the male.
>
> >The problem has been in the Christian faith that certain leaders have
> >specified what the good works should be in religious observances,
> >doctrines (heresies and traditions) and works of charity towards
> >others.
> >And in that teaching the leaders are akin to the apostles
> >and the laity (as the non-leaders have come to be called)
> >are akin to the peasants who listened to Jesus Christ and His
> >apostles.
>
> >My readings indicate that Christianity was developing reasonably until
> >310AD and from that date additions were made to the Christian teachings
> >by the Church at Rome until in the late 1300's John Wycliffe in
> >England and in the early 1500's Martin Luther began their protests.
> >(No mass media in those days)
> >And others followed with different emphases; changed Biblical versions
> >and added doctrines as they set up their teaching groups.
> >What chance (probability ratings) is there of sorting it all out?
>
> On a scale of 0 to 100 I rate it -1.
>
I haven't made any calculation of the probability rating.
> >I haven't the answer for I am aware that indoctrinations die hard. .
>
> Christianity is popular because anybody can call themselves Christian.
>
If they do they may be Christian in name only.
There are beliefs and committments in the Christian faith.
The beliefs cannot vary.
Some of the commitments can vary,
but may be difficult to achieve when constitutions for a Christian
group have been formulated and accepted and are difficult to change in
changing times.
Hence the number of denominations as certain persons decide they want
to worship in a different way or give emphasis to a specific teaching,
such as 'speaking in unknown languages that did occur on the Day of
Pentecost (Acts 2) of the New Testament and can still occur quite
spontaneously but understood by the person who does know that language
but when practised within a group may just be babbling/gibberish when
taped and analysed.
Committments, as I have researched this through the Internet, have had
the greatest variability within the Roman Catholic Church (the
Vatican) since 310AD to 1950AD as heresies and traditions have been
added. It is to be hoped that as Vatican officials and members have
access to the Internet they will come to understand that.
Gladys Swager
I
> BTW, "Gospel Parallels" by Burton and Throckmorton is still available.
> There are a couple of reviews at the bottom of the page:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Parallels-NRSV-Comparison-Synoptic/dp/0840774842
The Five Gospel Parallels is an online resource which has the Synoptic
Gospels, John, Thomas and Paul side by side (depending on the configuration
you choose).
http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/
--
Linda Lee
> "Linda Lee" <li...@hipstargraphics.com> wrote:
> > Of course Matthew didn't need to "copy" from Mark. Matthew was an
> > apostle
>
> NOPE!
I thought you killfiled me when you got caught in your phony attempt
to claim you had proof the Commandment to obey the Sabbath wasn't in
the links you provided.
>
> Matthew quoted from the GREEK Septuagint rather than from the HEBREW Tanakh
> which means Matthew DIDN'T KNOW the Hebrew. THat fact alone means that
> Matthew WASN'T a Jew and WASN'T a JEWISH apostle of Jesus.
That is a totally illogical conclusion you've drawn. By the 'Hebrew
Tanakh', I presume you mean the Masoretic text, which was compiled
between the seventh and tenth centuries AD, and is believed to be not
as accurate as the Septuagint version, so it stands to reason that the
Apostle Matthew was familiar with, and referenced the original Hebrew
Scriptures from which the Septuagint was translated.
>
> > I am aware of what is called the "Synoptic Problem"
>
> NO, you seem utterly IGNORANT of it .....
There is no "Problem" for those who maintain the veracity of a text
written by an apostle (Matthew) outweighs a version written by an
evangelist (Mark) or a doctor (Luke).
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> TWO DIFFERING PORTRAITS OF JESUS:
>
> 1. The Synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew & Luke)
> - Jesus speaks in parables and aphorisms
> - God's imperial rule is the theme of Jesus' teaching
>
> 2. John's Gospel
> - Jesus speaks in long, involved discourses
> - Jesus is the theme of his own teaching
Let me see... an author might have a certain style. Certain authors
might compile the parables of the Messiah; certain other authors might
compile the more private teachings of the Messiah...
Luke 8:10 "And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of
the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might
not see, and hearing they might not understand."
Now what does the Messiah mean? He means the masses would have
rejected the teachings in the parables had they consciously understood
them fully immediately when they heard them. So they were given the
information in parables so that subconsciously they would absorb the
symbolism of them and would not immediately reject them because of
already firmly-held beliefs of which they were consciously aware. You
need to quit relying on confused authors and think a little bit.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> THE FOUR SOURCE THEORY:
>
> Matthew used Mark, Q, and is own special source called M.
>
> Luke also used Mark and Q, but had another source called L, which Mathew did
> not have.
>
> The material in M & L probably comes from oral tradition.
No kidding? The oral tradition of the Messiah's teachings?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Where is YOUR SCHOLARLY PROOF to the contary??????????????
Do you mean contrary? Have you joined the illiterate you constantly
complain, or is this a new word I haven't encountered yet?
You worship anyone who claims to be a 'scholar'; the problem is that
biblical 'scholars' have no consensus and always disagree. Sad.
>
> " The reversal regarding who bears the burden of proof.
That isn't even a complete sentence.
> The gospels are now
> assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is embellished by
> mythic elements that express the church's faith in him, and by plausible
> fictions
I don't believe that. Believe what you like and rely on the
assumptions of other biblically illiterate confused people like
yourself if you so please.
I see you've posted the following to me in another post:
"1. GOD'S EXISTENCE
GOD DOES NOT EXIST
None of the proofs of God's existence work.
Demonstrated:
- http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pages/proofs.htm
- Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" "
LOL. Dawkins did not prove God does not exist. I have no interest in
arguing with arrogant atheists like you whether or not God actually
exists. You're in a spiritually blind state that would be pathetic
were you not so arrogant.
I
>> Matthew quoted from the GREEK Septuagint rather than from the
>> HEBREW Tanakh which means Matthew DIDN'T KNOW the Hebrew. >> That fact
>> alone means that Matthew WASN'T a Jew and WASN'T a
>> JEWISH apostle of Jesus.
>
> By the 'Hebrew Tanakh', I presume you mean the Masoretic text
NOPE!
What was read in the Jewish Temple at Jerusalem pre-70 CE before it's
destruction. Are you saying that JEWS read a GREEK copy in GREEK in the
JEWISH TEMPLE???
WHERE is your proof?????
> > I am aware of what is called the "Synoptic Problem"
> NO, you seem utterly IGNORANT of it .....
> There is no "Problem"
There is a HUGE PROBLEM that has been discussed at scholarly levels for ages
in universities across the world. You seem utterly unaware of the problem
and revert to ignorant fundamentalist dogma rather than scholarly research.
>> Where is YOUR SCHOLARLY PROOF to the
>> contrary??????????????
>
> You worship anyone who claims to be a 'scholar'
Nope. I take the command to love God with ALL MY MIND seriously.
As usual, you have NO SCHOLARLY PROOF whatsoever!
ALL you have is:
1. Fundamentalist man-made dogma (Sexism intended as Fundamnentalists do not
let women make decisions.)
2. Your own personal opinion based on the above Fundamentalist dogma.
>> The gospels are now assumed to be narratives in which the memory of >>
>> Jesus is embellished by mythic elements that express the church's faith
>> in >> him, and by plausible fictions
>
> I don't believe that.
Then you remain firmly OUTSIDE CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARLY DEBATE.
> I see you've posted the following to me in another post:
> "1. GOD'S EXISTENCE
> GOD DOES NOT EXIST
> None of the proofs of God's existence work.
> Demonstrated:
> - http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pages/proofs.htm
> - Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" "
>
> Dawkins did not prove God does not exist.
No, Jean-Paul Sartre CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST in "On
Being and Nothingness" ... which, of course, you have read
.................. not!
Stated in philosophical terms which you probably have no idea about ........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SARTRE: I tried to show that God would have to be the "in-itself for
itself," that is, an infinite in-itself inhabitated by an infinite
for-itself, and that this notion of "in-itself for itself" was in itself
contradictory and could not constitute a proof of God's existence.
DE BEAVOIR: It was, on the contrary, a proof of God's nonexistence.
SARTRE: It did provide a proof of God's nonexistence.
from Simone de Beauvoir "Adieux: A Farewell to Sartre (Interviews with
Jean-Paul Sartre)" (Penguin: 1981) p. 437
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The FULL argument for the non-existence of God is found in Jean-Paul
Sartre's "Being And Nothingness: A phenomenological essay on ontology"
(Pocket Books: 1956). Understanding Sartre's terminolgy is critical.
> I have no interest in arguing
That's OBVIOUS!
Remain ignorant!
--
Terry Cross
> On Nov 10, 2:58�am, "I" <me00127@home> wrote:
> > "Linda Lee" <li...@hipstargraphics.com> wrote:
> > > Of course Matthew didn't need to "copy" from Mark. �Matthew was an
> > > apostle
> >
> > NOPE!
>
> I thought you killfiled me when you got caught in your phony attempt
> to claim you had proof the Commandment to obey the Sabbath wasn't in
> the links you provided.
>
> >
> > Matthew quoted from the GREEK Septuagint rather than from the HEBREW Tanakh
> > which means Matthew DIDN'T KNOW the Hebrew. �THat fact alone means that
> > Matthew WASN'T a Jew and WASN'T a JEWISH apostle of Jesus.
>
> That is a totally illogical conclusion you've drawn.
Mark T cites the Hebrew University attack on Christianity. Are we
surprised that Mark T cites Jewish partisans to attack Christianity?
Mark T toes the secular Jewish line on every issue.
> By the 'Hebrew
> Tanakh', I presume you mean the Masoretic text, which was compiled
> between the seventh and tenth centuries AD, and is believed to be not
> as accurate as the Septuagint version, so it stands to reason that the
> Apostle Matthew was familiar with, and referenced the original Hebrew
> Scriptures from which the Septuagint was translated.
The Masoretic Text is, by an article of Jewish faith, a copy of the
Mosaic texts. Such is not an article of Christian faith, however.
Nor should it be an article of secular Jewish faith, since secular
Jews allegedly have no faith.
> > > I am aware of what is called the "Synoptic Problem"
> >
> > NO, you seem utterly IGNORANT of it .....
>
> There is no "Problem" for those who maintain the veracity of a text
> written by an apostle (Matthew) outweighs a version written by an
> evangelist (Mark) or a doctor (Luke).
Heh!
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > TWO DIFFERING PORTRAITS OF JESUS:
> >
> > 1. The Synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew & Luke)
> > - Jesus speaks in parables and aphorisms
> > - God's imperial rule is the theme of Jesus' teaching
> >
> > 2. John's Gospel
> > - Jesus speaks in long, involved discourses
> > - Jesus is the theme of his own teaching
>
> Let me see... an author might have a certain style. Certain authors
> might compile the parables of the Messiah; certain other authors might
> compile the more private teachings of the Messiah...
Jesus preached and ministered for about three years. To compile three
such years into a small book requires considerable editorial
selection. Even where Jesus' words on the same subject seem to
differ, we cannot exclude the possibility that Jesus returned to the
same subjects on multiple occasions with differing treatments, or that
Jesus' style changed during his ministry to meet the understanding of
different audiences.
> Luke 8:10 "And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of
> the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might
> not see, and hearing they might not understand."
>
> Now what does the Messiah mean? He means the masses would have
> rejected the teachings in the parables had they consciously understood
> them fully immediately when they heard them. So they were given the
> information in parables so that subconsciously they would absorb the
> symbolism of them and would not immediately reject them because of
> already firmly-held beliefs of which they were consciously aware. You
> need to quit relying on confused authors and think a little bit.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > THE FOUR SOURCE THEORY:
> >
> > Matthew used Mark, Q, and is own special source called M.
> >
> > Luke also used Mark and Q, but had another source called L, which Mathew did
> > not have.
> >
> > The material in M & L probably comes from oral tradition.
>
>
> No kidding? The oral tradition of the Messiah's teachings?
"Oral tradition" is another important part of the Jewish faith. Like
the stories from the old camel drivers, every one begins with the
words, "This story comes down from the time of Sulimon the Wise when
he ruled ...." etc. The whole Mishnah is allegedly the Great Law
passed down Orally from the lips of Moses.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Where is YOUR SCHOLARLY PROOF to the contary??????????????
>
> Do you mean contrary? Have you joined the illiterate you constantly
> complain, or is this a new word I haven't encountered yet?
Multiple question marks are a sign of illiteracy.
> You worship anyone who claims to be a 'scholar'; the problem is that
> biblical 'scholars' have no consensus and always disagree. Sad.
Each such "scholar" is an ego unto herself; to feed that ego, she
must make herself heard as a voice shrill and different in a cacaphony
of voices, with books published over her name.
> > " The reversal regarding who bears the burden of proof.
>
> That isn't even a complete sentence.
Note Mark T's reversal: Mark T says, "The burden is heavy - you carry
it."
Jesus said, "Give me your burden, I will carry it. You carry my
burden for it is light."
Matthew 11
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in
heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
TCross
Linda Lee
> "Linda Lee" <li...@hipstargraphics.com> wrote:
> >> Matthew quoted from the GREEK Septuagint rather than from the
> >> HEBREW Tanakh which means Matthew DIDN'T KNOW the Hebrew. >> That fact
> >> alone means that Matthew WASN'T a Jew and WASN'T a
> >> JEWISH apostle of Jesus.
>
>
> NOPE!
>
> What was read in the Jewish Temple at Jerusalem pre-70 CE before it's
> destruction. Are you saying that JEWS read a GREEK copy in GREEK in the
> JEWISH TEMPLE???
That's not what I said, try reading with some comprehension. And it
would be nice too if you didn't delete things others' say so you can
manipulate the debate. Here, I'll restore it for you:
> > which was compiled between the seventh and tenth centuries AD,
> > and is believed to be not as accurate as the Septuagint version, so it
> > stands to reason that the Apostle Matthew was familiar with, and
> > referenced the original Hebrew Scriptures from which the Septuagint
> > was translated.
>
> WHERE is your proof?????
>
> > > I am aware of what is called the "Synoptic Problem"
> > NO, you seem utterly IGNORANT of it .....
> > There is no "Problem"
>
> There is a HUGE PROBLEM that has been discussed at scholarly levels for ages
> in universities across the world. You seem utterly unaware of the problem
> and revert to ignorant fundamentalist dogma rather than scholarly research.
>
> >> Where is YOUR SCHOLARLY PROOF to the
> >> contrary??????????????
>
> > You worship anyone who claims to be a 'scholar'
>
> Nope. I take the command to love God with ALL MY MIND seriously.
>
> As usual, you have NO SCHOLARLY PROOF whatsoever!
That you have a mind ? or love God with all your mind ? No I don't
see any proof of either.
You have scholarly conjecture, but you have no scholarly proof either
and both the scholars you've quoted and yourselves cannot use reason
even reasonably well.
>
> >> The gospels are now assumed to be narratives in which the memory of >>
> >> Jesus is embellished by mythic elements that express the church's faith
> >> in >> him, and by plausible fictions
>
> > I don't believe that.
>
> Then you remain firmly OUTSIDE CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARLY DEBATE.
Agreed. The 'scholars' I've seen are ignorant of the Scriptures.
>
> > I see you've posted the following to me in another post:
> > "1. GOD'S EXISTENCE
> > GOD DOES NOT EXIST
> > None of the proofs of God's existence work.
> > Demonstrated:
> > -http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pages/proofs.htm
> > - Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" "
>
> > Dawkins did not prove God does not exist.
>
> No, Jean-Paul Sartre CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST in "On
> Being and Nothingness" ... which, of course, you have read
> .................. not!
That depends on what you mean by 'existence'.
>
> Stated in philosophical terms which you probably have no idea about ........
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> SARTRE: I tried to show that God would have to be the "in-itself for
> itself," that is, an infinite in-itself inhabitated by an infinite
> for-itself, and that this notion of "in-itself for itself" was in itself
> contradictory and could not constitute a proof of God's existence.
>
> DE BEAVOIR: It was, on the contrary, a proof of God's nonexistence.
>
> SARTRE: It did provide a proof of God's nonexistence.
>
> from Simone de Beauvoir "Adieux: A Farewell to Sartre (Interviews with
> Jean-Paul Sartre)" (Penguin: 1981) p. 437
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> The FULL argument for the non-existence of God is found in Jean-Paul
> Sartre's "Being And Nothingness: A phenomenological essay on ontology"
> (Pocket Books: 1956). Understanding Sartre's terminolgy is critical.
>
> > I have no interest in arguing with arrogant atheists like you whether
> > or not God actually exists. You're in a spiritually blind state that would
> > be pathetic were you not so arrogant.
>
> That's OBVIOUS!
I know.
>
> Remain ignorant!
I know you will. That's your battle cry.
Linda Lee
To me it is logical that Mark (whom Peter calls "my son") and Luke
(Luke admits to this) heard what the Messiah said from other sources,
so they weren't writing from memory as the apostle Matthew would have
been. For that reason and because only Matthew of the synoptic gospels
was written by an apostle, I place the authenticity of the Gospel of
Matthew above Mark's and Luke's, no matter what the age of the
available manuscripts. First doesn't equate to most accurate. In fact
Matthew may have written to correct and complete Mark's allegedly
earlier version.
Mark T ultimately stands for Mark Troll.
>
> TCross
I
> WHERE is your proof?????
Oh ... you have NO PROOF!!!!
> The 'scholars' I've seen are ignorant of the Scriptures.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype ("Nudist Colony
Of The Dead")
Back you go in the Bozo Bin ........ PLONK!
Terry Cross
> "Linda Lee" <li...@hipstargraphics.com> wrote:
> > WHERE is your proof?????
>
> Oh ... you have NO PROOF!!!!
>
> > The 'scholars' I've seen are ignorant of the Scriptures.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
>
> "We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype ("Nudist Colony
> Of The Dead")
>
> Back you go in the Bozo Bin ........ PLONK!
Why should the scribes and Pharisees of today be any more capable of
understanding the message of Jesus than those in Jesus' day?
TCross
Linda Lee
> "Linda Lee" <li...@hipstargraphics.com> wrote:
> > WHERE is your proof?????
>
> Oh ... you have NO PROOF!!!!
Neither do you.
>
> > The 'scholars' I've seen are ignorant of the Scriptures.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
>
> "We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype ("Nudist Colony
> Of The Dead")
>
> Back you go in the Bozo Bin ........ PLONK!
LOL ...only a bozo maintains a Bozo Bin.
Linda Lee
Modern-day 'sholars' certainly don't understand the writings. Even in
the older biblical commentaries there are obvious errors, especially
when they try to validate Paul or explain allegorical writings.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the prophets report God saying repeatedly
that the priests and scribes didn't understand God's prophets either.
Since they tend to build on prior misunderstanding, it continues with
one revered scholar validating the errors of a previous one.
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 10, 8:41 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>>snip>
>>
>> I hope you can answer some questions for me.
>>
>> >The basic Biblical fundamental (essential) =
>> >John 3 : 16
>> >For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
>> >so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but shall have
>> >everlasting life.
>>
>> Why is it essential that you believe God needs a ritual?
>>
>What are the riruals that you believe God needs?
You keep telling me God needs the ritual of having his son murdered
on a cross.
>> >Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
>> >For by grace are (we) saved, through faith
>> >and that not of (our)selves: it is the gift of God;
>> >Not of works lest any (one) should boast.
>> >and other such verses.
>>
>> Why is God's unconditional gift conditional on us being naive?
>>
>Why do you say that to accept God's gift we need to be naive?
You say we must be naive enough to believe.
If you were to succeed in getting everybody to agree it would just mean
Christianity would be far less popular.
Terry Cross
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:06:48 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >On Nov 10, 8:41 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> >>snip>
>
> >> I hope you can answer some questions for me.
>
> >> >The basic Biblical fundamental (essential) =
> >> >John 3 : 16
> >> >For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
> >> >so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but shall have
> >> >everlasting life.
>
> >> Why is it essential that you believe God needs a ritual?
What ritual?
> >What are the riruals that you believe God needs?
What ritual?
> You keep telling me God needs the ritual of having his son murdered
> on a cross.
That is no ritual. The horror of the betrayal and crucifixion created
a huge rift between the people and the priests of Palestine and
destroyed a significant portion of Judaism. The Jews have never
forgiven Jesus for that perceived destruction of their ambitions.
> >> >Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
> >> >For by grace are (we) saved, through faith
> >> >and that not of (our)selves: it is the gift of God;
> >> >Not of works lest any (one) should boast.
> >> >and other such verses.
>
> >> Why is God's unconditional gift conditional on us being naive?
Faith is not naivety. Faith is the ability to remain constant and
truthful to principle or personage, even in the face of adversity.
Without faith, a person is nothing.
> >Why do you say that to accept God's gift we need to be naive?
There is no "why." That was not stated.
> You say we must be naive enough to believe.
Faith is much more than belief. Faith is remaining constant.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise,
oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith
during our recent troubles.
Your ignorance of English is pitiful.
TCross
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 12, 2:43 pm, Barry OGrady <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:06:48 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >On Nov 10, 8:41 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>> >>snip>
>>
>> >> I hope you can answer some questions for me.
>>
>> >> >The basic Biblical fundamental (essential) =
>> >> >John 3 : 16
>> >> >For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
>> >> >so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but shall have
>> >> >everlasting life.
>>
>> >> Why is it essential that you believe God needs a ritual?
>
>What ritual?
The ritual of having his son killed on a cross then magically coming
back to life.
>> >What are the riruals that you believe God needs?
>
>What ritual?
The ritual of having his son killed on a cross then magically coming
back to life.
>> You keep telling me God needs the ritual of having his son murdered
>> on a cross.
>
>That is no ritual. The horror of the betrayal and crucifixion created
>a huge rift between the people and the priests of Palestine and
>destroyed a significant portion of Judaism. The Jews have never
>forgiven Jesus for that perceived destruction of their ambitions.
The jews probably hate God for making them that way.
>> >> >Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
>> >> >For by grace are (we) saved, through faith
>> >> >and that not of (our)selves: it is the gift of God;
>> >> >Not of works lest any (one) should boast.
>> >> >and other such verses.
>>
>> >> Why is God's unconditional gift conditional on us being naive?
>
>Faith is not naivety. Faith is the ability to remain constant and
>truthful to principle or personage, even in the face of adversity.
>Without faith, a person is nothing.
Faith is belief in what you know is untrue.
>> >Why do you say that to accept God's gift we need to be naive?
>
>There is no "why." That was not stated.
Gladys suggests we need to be naive before God will save us from
himself, even though faith was not needed for God to downgrade us.
>> You say we must be naive enough to believe.
>
>Faith is much more than belief. Faith is remaining constant.
Remaining in error.
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
>
>6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise,
>engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
>7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise,
>oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith
>during our recent troubles.
>
>Your ignorance of English is pitiful.
Your ignorance of Christianity is pitiful.
>TCross
Sean McHugh
Linda, in your supposed refutation, you didn't even seem to know what
the Synoptic Problem was, despite the fact that it had just been
presented to you. Not only did you not refute my points, you didn't
even address them. I'm not even sure that you read them before
snipping them. That you claim to have soundly refuted them,
illustrates just how naive and delusional a dedicated
Christian apologist can be - or perhaps, needs to be.
You still need to explain why, when Mark is not present, Matthew
and Luke are so widely divergent, not only in story but even in
geography. You need to explain the numerous times where the
commentary is word-for-word and why that word-for-wording occurs
in the Greek! You need to explain why Matthew and Luke, though being
quite different to each other, will harmonise when Mark is
present. You need to explain the 99% correlation between their
harmonies and Mark's presence. You need to explain why Matthew and
Luke, when they deviate from Mark to do their own thing (as they
often do), will always return to the point in Mark where they left
off.
So what is your explanation, Linda? This time, please skip the
characteristic religious bluster and properly answer.
Next recall, that in showing the wide divergence of Matthew and Luke
when Mark isn't present, I furnished you with the following:
~ Yes, but once again this simply shows that, without Mark present,
~ Matthew and Luke will diverge widely. The pattern remains, that
~ when Mark is available, Matthew and Luke will be in harmony and
~ that otherwise they won't. Mark properly ends at 16:8 and has no
~ post-resurrection appearances by Jesus. This was obviously
~ unacceptable for the other two Synoptic writers so Matthew and Luke
~ both added post resurrection accounts, but ones that deny each
~ other. Luke's Apostles meet Jesus in Jerusalem on the day of the
~ resurrection, and he commands them to remain in Jerusalem till (at
~ Pentecost) they receive the power from on high (24:9). But
~ Pentecost was 47 days away, longer than the 40 days the resurrected
~ Jesus allegedly remained on earth (Acts 1:3). Luke informs us that
~ they obeyed this (Luke 24:52-53). So when did they, in Luke, go to
~ Galilee to the designated mountain? And why did the undead Jesus
~ leave Jesus instruction for them to go to Galilee, saying he would
~ be going there before them (Mat 28:10), if he was to meet them in
~ Jerusalem where he would tell them to say? In Matthew, they
~ complied with the Mark/Matthew instruction and went to the
~ mountain in Galilee to see the risen Jesus (28:16). So which is
~ it? See what a mess Matthew and Luke get into when Mark isn't
~ available? [Sean]
You also need to answer that, Linda. How did they obey Jesus'
instruction (issued on the day of the resurrection) to stay in
Jerusalem (for at least 47 days), and at the same time, follow the
instruction to go to Galilee? Rather than arrogantly telling me
to use logic (Linda copping out with bluster), let's see YOU
logically answer that problem.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Sean McHugh
answer the points being put to you.
Linda, I don't well receive mentoring in logic from someone who,
besides ignoring all the evidence presented to them, assumes scripture
to be authoritative in order to prove it is authoritative. You
haven't really addressed _any_ of the evidence or arguments in a
coherent manner and it appears that you might not have even read it.
The fact remains that there is a great deal of recognised evidence
that matthean author copied from Mark (the document), and that the
document copied was a Greek document. This is enough to make one
fairly certain that the Gospel titled Matthew is not a first-hand
account and was not written by a Apostle in Jesus' entourage. But that
is simply additional, because even without that, the Gospels are
regarded as being anonymous:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg03.htm
~ The Christ
~ John E. Remsberg
~ These books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been
~ written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not
~ affirm it. They simply imply that they are "according" to the
~ supposed teachings of these Evangelists. . . . . . . . . . .
~ Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: "They
~ appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our
~ Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition
~ which deserves no confidence whatever" (Bible for Learners,
~ Vol. III, p. 24).
And:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-MatthewGo.html
>From the Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition:
~ Gospel according to Matthew
~ Traditonally regarded as the earliest Gospel, it is now
~ generally accepted that it postdates the Gospel of St. Mark
~ and drew considerable material from it . . . . . . . . .
~ . . . . The traditional ascription of the Gospel to St.
~ Matthew, which dates from the 2d cent., is questioned by
~ most scholars. See J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew (1975); G.
~ Stanton, ed., The Interpretation of Matthew (1983).
So claiming for matthean testimonial independence, by assuming
that the matthean author was the Apostle Matthew, is to use a boat
anchor as a buoyancy vest. You first need to demonstrate, that
contrary to the evidence, Matthew the fisherman was the actual author
of the author if the first Gospel in the NT.
> > > > > Mark begins with John's baptism of the Messiah. Matthew begins with
> > > > > the miraculous birth (Matt. 1:18,
>
> > > > Mark T is correct.
>
> > > Baloney.
> >
> > He is a search on "Synoptic Problem":
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/2df3v7
> >
> > See that it produces 61,000 hits. When you say "Baloney", you really
> > have no way of knowing. You appear to be oblivious to the Synoptic
> > Problem and seem determined to keep it that way.
>
> I am aware of what is called the "Synoptic Problem",
No Linda, you weren't at all aware and now, except the vaguest gist,
you are still very ignorant of it and seemingly determined to remain
that way.
> [I am aware of what is called the "Synoptic Problem", which they've
> manufactured out of ignorance and illogic.
Given your naive responses and seeming failure to even grasp the
evidence - let alone argue against it - you are definitely in no
position to assume for yourself superior understanding and logic.
> > This isn't something
> > that Mark T (or I) just cooked up; the Synoptic Problem is well known
> > in biblical scholarship.
> >
> > > > Matthew starts two chapters before Mark, as does
> > > > Luke.
> > > And the Gospel of the Evangelist Mark leaves out MAJOR teachings that
> > > are in the report of the APOSTLE Matthew, in effect Mark's gospel
> > > denies the Messiah was seen as a miraculous birth and King of the Jews
> > > and fulfillment of the prophecies of the expected Messiah and Saviour;
> > > those OMISSIONS are why NON-believers prefer the Gospel of Mark.
> > They only became 'omissions' in Mark when they were added in Matthew.
>
> Remain ignorant; your choice.
So what does one learn about it from you, apart from faith and
flashbacks to Sunday school?
> Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that
> they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made
> blind.
> Joh 9:40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these
> words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
> Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no
> sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Yes, His Infinite Invisibleness did fill the spirit and thus
bring salvation to the sheep who hid their lights under a bushel
and could not find their way. His brightness did suffer darkness
so that they will inherit the earth and shall not want.
IOW, pontifical convoluted meta-linguistic blah blah!
> > > Mark T (posting as "I") has posted one of his usual inaccuracies
> > > here. Mark's gospel was NOT "repeated" in Matthew's gospel.
> >
> > Over 90% of Mark appears in Matthew.
> >
> > > Mark begins with John's baptism of the Messiah. Matthew begins with
> > > the miraculous birth (Matt. 1:18, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was
> > > on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before
> > > they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost") and
> > > genealogy of the Messiah and the reason he was given his name; it goes
> > > on with him being born in Bethlehem fulfilling a prophesy of the
> > > Messiah as "King of the Jews" (Matt. 2:1-2), and has him called from
> > > Egypt fulfilling another prophesy (Matt. 2:15), and shows him being
> > > worshipped from birth (Matt. 2:11, "And when they were come into the
> > > house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down,
> > > and worshipped him").
> <snip>
If two of the Gospels were written by members of the 'Twelve
Apostles' why did it take the Church 150 years, after the time
of Jesus, to name and number them? It isn't until ~185 AD, 150 years
after the time of Jesus, that the Church (Irenaeus) named and numbered
the four documents. Clearly it took the Gospels that long to
gain official recognition and acceptance:
http://www.thenazareneway.com/gospels_second_century_writings.htm
~ The Gospels: Second Century Writings
~ Excerpts from "THE CHRIST" By John E. Remsberg.
~ The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers.
~ Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote
~ about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof
~ of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels
~ had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred
~ quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one
~ hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but
~ none from the Four Gospels.
They might have 'existed' but obviously the prominent Church Father,
Justin Martyr, either hadn't heard of the four gospels that are used
today or hadn't accepted their authority.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Nov 10, 8:41 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >>snip>
> >> >The basic Biblical fundamental (essential) =
> >> >John 3 : 16
> >> >For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten
> >> >Son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but
> >> >shall have everlasting life.
>
> >> Why is it essential that you believe God needs a ritual?
>
Ritual = 1.an established or set procedure, code, form, system etc
for a religious or other rite.
2.the act of following of set forms in public worship
3. a ritual service, such as the burial of the dead
4.. any solemn or customary action,
code of behaviour determining social
conduct (Macquarie Dictionary)
>What are the riruals that you believe God needs?
>
> You keep telling me God needs the ritual of having his son
> murdered on a cross.
>
I haven't called the crucifixion of Jesus 'a ritual'.
It was really a crime - the murder of a man who had always done good,
but in challenging the religious leaders had incurred their wrath
which caused them to plot his death;
but that wasn't the end.
On the third day (the Jews counted part of a day equal to a day) he
was resurrected - He was restored to life - that is the Easter account
that in cultures based on the Christian faith occurs each year during
March or April.
> >> >Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
> >> >For by grace are (we) saved, through faith
> >> >and that not of (our)selves: it is the gift of God;
> >> >Not of works lest any (one) should boast.
> >> >and other such verses.
>
> >> Why is God's unconditional gift conditional on us being naive?
>
> >Why do you say that to accept God's gift we need to be naive?
>
> You say we must be naive enough to believe.
>
I have not said that we need to be 'naive' ie having or showing
simplicity of nature, unsophisticated (Macquarie Dictionary).
But I am understanding now, more closely what you mean.
I grew up in the 30's and 40's with Christian teaching which I
accepted to be true, but with few teachings to prove that it was so.
For many the War Years brought reactions that as the Christian nations
of Europe were involved that Christianity had failed;
that was a wrong appraisal it could have been better said that the
Christian faith had, in the greater part, been moved out of the public
arena into church buildings, and its precepts had not had their full
impact on public life.
Hitler could not have done what he did if he had kept
Matthew 5 : 44, Love your enemies etc., in mind, after he had been
wounded in France in 1918. His mind had become consummed by revenge
and evolutionary ideas of making the Aryan (German) people as the
leaders of the world because of the Eugenics teachings of Darwins's
newphew, Galton.
(I did have a German grandfather amongst all my forbears from Europe
and I suffered in my health because of his aggrandisements even though
thousands of miles away in Australia).
>
> >> >I can't see that a person has any claim to a Christian faith > >> >if those verses are not its foundation.
>
> >> >If any person who holds those verses
> >> >above and John 3 : 16
> >> > and others) as essential but doesn't go on in
> >> Christianity is popular because anybody can call themselves
> >> Christian.
>
> >If they do they may be Christian in name only.
> >There are beliefs and committments in the Christian faith.
> >The beliefs cannot vary.
> >Some of the commitments can vary,
> >but may be difficult to achieve when constitutions for a
> > Christian group have been formulated and accepted and are
> > difficult to change in changing times.
> >Hence the number of denominations as certain persons decide
> > they want to worship in a different way or give emphasis to a > >specific teaching,
> >such as 'speaking in unknown languages that did occur on the
> > the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) of the New Testament and can
> >still occur quite spontaneously but understood by the person
> > who does know that language but when practised within a group
> > may just be babbling/gibberish when taped and analysed.
>
> >Committments, as I have researched this through the Internet,
> > have had the greatest variability within the Roman Catholic
> > Church (the Vatican) since 310AD to 1950AD as heresies and
> >traditions have been
> >added. It is to be hoped that as Vatican officials and members
> >have access to the Internet they will come to understand that.
>
> If you were to succeed in getting everybody to agree it would
> just mean Christianity would be far less popular.
>
I am not understanding what you mean.
In Australia about 65% of the population stated a form of the
Christian faith as their religion in the last Census, with the
combined Protestants about 10% more than the Roman Catholics. So it
could be stated that Australia is not a secular country as some do in
media presentations, either through lying of ignorance.
Since 1976 I have been interested in Christian unity, but that
has to be on New Testament teachings. Those have more interpretations
these days that I was aware of in my younger days.
But Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9. John 3 : 16 and a committment to helping
others know the Christian gospel and helping as one is able in good
deeds make a good basis for the beginnings of what the Christian life
should be.
I hope and pray, Barry, that you will be able to start there in your
Christian life.
Gladys Swager
I am having trouble with the attrition marks again
It could be from the updates that have been put in my computer.
I do hope the above has come out with few difficulties. GS
Barry OGrady
code of behaviour determining social conduct?
>>What are the riruals that you believe God needs?
>>
>> You keep telling me God needs the ritual of having his son
>> murdered on a cross.
>>
>I haven't called the crucifixion of Jesus 'a ritual'.
You described it as a ritual.
>It was really a crime - the murder of a man who had always done good,
>but in challenging the religious leaders had incurred their wrath
>which caused them to plot his death;
>but that wasn't the end.
>On the third day (the Jews counted part of a day equal to a day) he
>was resurrected - He was restored to life - that is the Easter account
>that in cultures based on the Christian faith occurs each year during
>March or April.
Why does an almighty God need such a thing?
>> >> >Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
>> >> >For by grace are (we) saved, through faith
>> >> >and that not of (our)selves: it is the gift of God;
>> >> >Not of works lest any (one) should boast.
>> >> >and other such verses.
>>
>> >> Why is God's unconditional gift conditional on us being naive?
>>
>> >Why do you say that to accept God's gift we need to be naive?
>>
>> You say we must be naive enough to believe.
>>
>I have not said that we need to be 'naive' ie having or showing
>simplicity of nature, unsophisticated (Macquarie Dictionary).
>But I am understanding now, more closely what you mean.
<cue soapbox>
>I grew up in the 30's and 40's with Christian teaching which I
>accepted to be true, but with few teachings to prove that it was so.
>For many the War Years brought reactions that as the Christian nations
>of Europe were involved that Christianity had failed;
>that was a wrong appraisal it could have been better said that the
>Christian faith had, in the greater part, been moved out of the public
>arena into church buildings, and its precepts had not had their full
>impact on public life.
>Hitler could not have done what he did if he had kept
>Matthew 5 : 44, Love your enemies etc., in mind, after he had been
>wounded in France in 1918. His mind had become consummed by revenge
>and evolutionary ideas of making the Aryan (German) people as the
>leaders of the world because of the Eugenics teachings of Darwins's
>newphew, Galton.
Some Christians would say Hitler was not responsible since he did
not personally transport people to the death camps. They would say
the jews and others had free will so must have chosen to go.
>(I did have a German grandfather amongst all my forbears from Europe
>and I suffered in my health because of his aggrandisements even though
>thousands of miles away in Australia).
Germany makes good cars.
Christianity is popular because a person can call themselves
Christian while believing anything.
If you narrow the range of beliefs down you will make Christianity
far less popular.
>In Australia about 65% of the population stated a form of the
>Christian faith as their religion in the last Census, with the
>combined Protestants about 10% more than the Roman Catholics. So it
>could be stated that Australia is not a secular country as some do in
>media presentations, either through lying of ignorance.
More likely through wishful thinking or embarrassment.
Christianity is an embarrassment to any developed country.
>Since 1976 I have been interested in Christian unity, but that
>has to be on New Testament teachings. Those have more interpretations
>these days that I was aware of in my younger days.
>
>But Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9. John 3 : 16 and a committment to helping
>others know the Christian gospel and helping as one is able in good
>deeds make a good basis for the beginnings of what the Christian life
>should be.
If the truth of Christianity got out there would be no Christians.
>I hope and pray, Barry, that you will be able to start there in your
>Christian life.
You wouldn't want me as a Christian.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> >Ritual = 1.an established or set procedure, code, form, system etc
> > for a religious or other rite.
> > 2.the act of following of set forms in public worship
> > 3. a ritual service, such as the burial of the dead
> > 4.. any solemn or customary action,
> > code of behaviour determining social
> > conduct (Macquarie Dictionary)
>
> Why is it essential that you believe God needs
(as given above)>
> >> You keep telling me God needs the ritual of having his son
> >> murdered on a cross.
> >I haven't called the crucifixion of Jesus 'a ritual'.
> You described it as a ritual.
I did not describe Christ's death on the cross as a 'ritual'.
You are the first person to do so in a statement to me in my
lifetime.
> >It was really a crime - the murder of a man who had always done good, but in challenging the religious leaders had incurred their wrath which caused them to plot his death; but that wasn't the end.
> >On the third day (the Jews counted part of a day equal to a day) he was resurrected -ie He was restored to life - that is the Easter account that in cultures based on the Christian faith occurs each year during March or April.
>
> Why does an almighty God need such a thing?
>
1 Corinthians 15 : 21 - 22 For since by (one) man (Adam)
came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ (those who have accepted His
salvation) shall all be made alive.
Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
For by grace are (we) saved, through faith
and that not of (our)selves: it is the gift of God;
Not of works lest any (one) should boast.
and other such verses.
>
>I have not said that we need to be 'naive' ie having or showing
> >simplicity of nature, unsophisticated (Macquarie Dictionary).
> >But I am understanding now, more closely what you mean.
>
<snip>
> Some Christians would say Hitler was not responsible since he did
> not personally transport people to the death camps. They would say
> the Jews and others had free will so must have chosen to go.
>
Barry, you are playing with words and ideas, ***again***.
If Hitler had not given the order then the Jews would not have been
transported to the concentration camps and death chambers.
No matter how the Jews protested his officers forced the situation at
gun-point. You didn't live through that period, but you are making
assumptions about it that are not true.
>
> Germany makes good cars.
>
Hitler organised the car industry during the early 1930's to take
Germany out of the Depression and at the same time providing the
factories that could quickly change to production of the weapons of
war. His was the greatest evil in modern times, with a number of other
dictators following close behind him.
>
I can't see that a person has any claim to a Christian faith if
Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9 are not its foundation.
>
If any person who holds those verses above and John 3 : 16
and others) as essential but doesn't go on in
good works then that person is described in 1 Corinthians 3 : 13, 15
v. 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest; for the day
shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire;
and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is;
v. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer
loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so by fire.
>
> Christianity is popular because anybody can call themselves
> Christian.
>
If they do they may be Christian in name only.
You can only be Christian by personal committment.
Not necessarily so. If it is realised that to be a Christian one does
not have to be involved in rituals with a dependence on the clergyman
(priest) in charge. I can see the role of those with special training
in Biblical Theology changing in today's more literate societies - but
I realise that not everyone woudl agree with me on that. I fins an
oral teaching harder to keep it all in my mind than when I can read
and revise.
In fact the New Testament (1 Peter 2 : 6 , 9) teaches that Christians
are 'a holy and a royal priesthood'. All Christians are called to be
witnesses to Jesus Christ, as I am being now.
> >In Australia about 65% of the population stated a form of the
> >Christian faith as their religion in the last Census, with the
> >combined Protestants about 10% more than the Roman Catholics. So it could be stated that Australia is not a secular country as some do in media presentations, either through lying of ignorance.
>
> More likely through wishful thinking or embarrassment.
> Christianity is an embarrassment to any developed country.
>
People can enter a Christian denomination because they were placed in
it shortly after birth.
Your second point above is not correct. There are secularists/atheists
who would say that, and would want it to be.
As they enphasise 'doing good to others' they could say that their
beliefs match the Christian faith, but they are involved in
pseudo-form of it. They do not understand the relationship with the
Triune God Almighty that is essential to being a Christian.
> >Since 1976 I have been interested in Christian unity, but that
> >has to be on New Testament teachings. There are more interpretations than I was aware of in my younger days.
>
> >Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9 and John 3 : 16 and a committment to helping
> >others know the Christian gospel and helping as one is able in good deeds make a good basis for the beginnings of what the Christian life should be.
>
> >I hope and pray, Barry, that you will be able to start there in your Christian life.
>
> You wouldn't want me as a Christian.
>
I don't know why you made that statement.
The fact is Jesus Christ wants you to put your faith in Him.
He said that He is the way the truth and the Life,
no one comes to (His) Father, but by Him. John 14 : 6
Do think about it. No more twisting of ideas with statements that you
may think are clever.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Nov 27, 2:40 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >On Nov 13, 9:43 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> >Ritual = 1.an established or set procedure, code, form, system etc
>> > for a religious or other rite.
>> > 2.the act of following of set forms in public worship
>> > 3. a ritual service, such as the burial of the dead
>> > 4.. any solemn or customary action,
>> > code of behaviour determining social
>> > conduct (Macquarie Dictionary)
>>
>> Why is it essential that you believe God needs
> (as given above)>
Why did you not answer?
>> >> You keep telling me God needs the ritual of having his son
>> >> murdered on a cross.
>> >I haven't called the crucifixion of Jesus 'a ritual'.
>> You described it as a ritual.
>
>I did not describe Christ's death on the cross as a 'ritual'.
>You are the first person to do so in a statement to me in my
>lifetime.
You described a ritual needed before God could restore conditions
he never should have taken from us.
>> >It was really a crime - the murder of a man who had always done
>>> good, but in challenging the religious leaders had incurred their wrath
>>> which caused them to plot his death; but that wasn't the end.
>> >On the third day (the Jews counted part of a day equal to a day) he
>>> was resurrected -ie He was restored to life - that is the Easter
>>> account that in cultures based on the Christian faith occurs each
>>> year during March or April.
>>
>> Why does an almighty God need such a thing?
>>
>1 Corinthians 15 : 21 - 22 For since by (one) man (Adam)
>came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
>For as in Adam all die, so in Christ (those who have accepted His
>salvation) shall all be made alive.
>Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
>For by grace are (we) saved, through faith
>and that not of (our)selves: it is the gift of God;
>Not of works lest any (one) should boast.
>and other such verses.
You didn't explain why an almighty God needs to follow a set pattern.
> >I have not said that we need to be 'naive' ie having or showing
>> >simplicity of nature, unsophisticated (Macquarie Dictionary).
>> >But I am understanding now, more closely what you mean.
>>
><snip>
>
>> Some Christians would say Hitler was not responsible since he did
>> not personally transport people to the death camps. They would say
>> the Jews and others had free will so must have chosen to go.
>>
>Barry, you are playing with words and ideas, ***again***.
>If Hitler had not given the order then the Jews would not have been
>transported to the concentration camps and death chambers.
>No matter how the Jews protested his officers forced the situation at
>gun-point. You didn't live through that period, but you are making
>assumptions about it that are not true.
Can we apply that to God?
If God had not created people the way he did the people would
not have done any wrong and God would have no excuse to
punish them.
No matter how much people protest God forces them to be
a certain way.
>> Germany makes good cars.
>>
>Hitler organised the car industry during the early 1930's to take
>Germany out of the Depression and at the same time providing the
>factories that could quickly change to production of the weapons of
>war. His was the greatest evil in modern times, with a number of other
>dictators following close behind him.
God must have his reasons for making them that way.
>I can't see that a person has any claim to a Christian faith if
>Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9 are not its foundation.
>>
>If any person who holds those verses above and John 3 : 16
>and others) as essential but doesn't go on in
>good works then that person is described in 1 Corinthians 3 : 13, 15
>v. 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest; for the day
>shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire;
>and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is;
>v. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer
>loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so by fire.
Are you suggesting almighty God is not almighty?
>> Christianity is popular because anybody can call themselves
>> Christian.
>>
>If they do they may be Christian in name only.
>You can only be Christian by personal committment.
>There are beliefs and committments in the Christian faith.
>The beliefs cannot vary.
>Some of the commitments can vary,
>but may be difficult to achieve when constitutions for a
>Christian group have been formulated and accepted and are
>difficult to change in changing times.
>Hence the number of denominations as certain persons decide
>they want to worship in a different way or give emphasis to a
>>specific teaching,
>such as 'speaking in unknown languages that did occur on the
>the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) of the New Testament and can
>still occur quite spontaneously but understood by the person
>who does know that language but when practised within a group
>may just be babbling/gibberish when taped and analysed.
>>
>Committments, as I have researched this through the Internet,
>have had the greatest variability within the Roman Catholic
>Church (the Vatican) since 310AD to 1950AD as heresies and
>traditions have been added.
>It is to be hoped that as Vatican officials and members
>have access to the Internet they will come to understand that.
You are so naive. No wonder the church loves you.
>> >> If you were to succeed in getting everybody to agree it would
>> >> just mean Christianity would be far less popular.
>>
>> >I am not understanding what you mean.
>>
>> Christianity is popular because a person can call themselves
>> Christian while believing anything.
>> If you narrow the range of beliefs down you will make Christianity
>> far less popular.
>>
>Not necessarily so. If it is realised that to be a Christian one does
>not have to be involved in rituals with a dependence on the clergyman
>(priest) in charge. I can see the role of those with special training
>in Biblical Theology changing in today's more literate societies - but
>I realise that not everyone woudl agree with me on that. I fins an
>oral teaching harder to keep it all in my mind than when I can read
>and revise.
>In fact the New Testament (1 Peter 2 : 6 , 9) teaches that Christians
>are 'a holy and a royal priesthood'. All Christians are called to be
>witnesses to Jesus Christ, as I am being now.
What percentage of Christians already follow those things?
>> >In Australia about 65% of the population stated a form of the
>> >Christian faith as their religion in the last Census, with the
>> >combined Protestants about 10% more than the Roman Catholics.
>> >So it could be stated that Australia is not a secular country as some
>> >do in media presentations, either through lying of ignorance.
>>
>> More likely through wishful thinking or embarrassment.
>> Christianity is an embarrassment to any developed country.
>>
>People can enter a Christian denomination because they were placed in
>it shortly after birth.
>Your second point above is not correct. There are secularists/atheists
>who would say that, and would want it to be.
>As they enphasise 'doing good to others' they could say that their
>beliefs match the Christian faith, but they are involved in
>pseudo-form of it. They do not understand the relationship with the
>Triune God Almighty that is essential to being a Christian.
>
>> >Since 1976 I have been interested in Christian unity, but that
>> >has to be on New Testament teachings. There are more
>> > interpretations than I was aware of in my younger days.
>>
>> >Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9 and John 3 : 16 and a committment to helping
>> >others know the Christian gospel and helping as one is able in good
>> > deeds make a good basis for the beginnings of what the Christian life should be.
Do you ever wonder why almighty God wants people to suffer because he is
so vague? Why doesn't almighty God use his almighty powers to let everybody
know the truth?
>> >I hope and pray, Barry, that you will be able to start there in your Christian life.
>>
>> You wouldn't want me as a Christian.
>>
>I don't know why you made that statement.
>The fact is Jesus Christ wants you to put your faith in Him.
>He said that He is the way the truth and the Life,
>no one comes to (His) Father, but by Him. John 14 : 6
I have faith that Jesus will talk directly to me in an unambiguous
way when he is ready. I am aware that God is slack as men call very slack.
>Do think about it. No more twisting of ideas with statements that you
>may think are clever.
I need more information from you. Please try to answer my questions.