|
Post by speak on Oct 18, 2019 22:24:55 GMT -5
No, I was raised in the fellowship but stopped going about the age of 10. Yes I did go to those meetings until the age of 10. OK. Thanks, I didn't mean to be impatient or nosy, -I just couldn't understand.
So, at least, -you did hear all the Christian doctrine until the age of 10, like the rest of us.I was asleep in most meetings.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 25, 2019 3:25:34 GMT -5
The Father did not kill his Son, he resurrected him! It sounds like you are saying Jesus was not sacrificed for the sins of the world. Isn't that the basis of christianity?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 25, 2019 8:09:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 25, 2019 8:10:59 GMT -5
The Father did not kill his Son, he resurrected him! It sounds like you are saying Jesus was not sacrificed for the sins of the world. Isn't that the basis of christianity? Yes, but still God didn’t kill his Son.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 25, 2019 13:44:06 GMT -5
It sounds like you are saying Jesus was not sacrificed for the sins of the world. Isn't that the basis of christianity? Yes, but still God didn’t kill his Son. I still don't understand how come you say that? He was sacrificed on a cross, isn't that killing your son? He supposedly died didn't he?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 25, 2019 15:43:57 GMT -5
Yes, but still God didn’t kill his Son. I still don't understand how come you say that? He was sacrificed on a cross, isn't that killing your son? He supposedly died didn't he? It is was the chief priests and other important Jewish leaders who delivered him to Pilate and demanded he be put to death! Bible says Pilate even knew it was for envy. God was giving them one last chance to turn themselves back to him, but in Malachi it says God would give salvation to thee Gentile nations so that hopefully it would move the Jewish nation to jealousy and cause then to turn back to God who’s chosen them for his people. He moved them to jealousy alright, but they became evil instead of repentant. Yes, Jesus is our Redeemer, but the thing when they had him crucified they changed things for themselves, they will have to come to believing in Jesus Christ just like the Gentile’s do in order to know salvation. Jesus said salvation is of the Jews. That’s how and why! You see God had already told the children of Israel that if strangers desired to live and worship with them, that they should allow them to and that they should give them their own possessions even land as time went by. That the heathen strangers could come to the temple or tabernacle but could not enter the inner court. They could stay in the outer court and this is where Jesus often resorted to to teach.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 25, 2019 20:49:06 GMT -5
It sounds like you are saying Jesus was not sacrificed for the sins of the world. Isn't that the basis of christianity? Yes, but still God didn’t kill his Son. God condoned the killing. Charles Manson didn't kill anyone either but was still found guilty of homicide.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Oct 25, 2019 21:18:57 GMT -5
While all here sort out if the Bible can be proven has anyone here studied the many sources that have argued the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to Mark” based “some” its content on the Epistles of Paul. Its seems there is some reliable evidence for such a claim. “Mark” is of course the earliest Gospel we have any surviving text or even any real evidence of. It was then used as a source by all the other Gospels now in the New Testament. So it’s particularly important to know if Mark was writing independently of Pauline tradition, or actually mythologizing it.
Would it be more accurate to say that the Gospels that came to be labeled “according to Matthew” and “according to Luke” are redactions of Mark, clearly intended originally to replace Mark—within the communities that produced, preferred, or promoted them?
Has anyone here came to the conclusion that only the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to John” actually used Mark the way other ancient authors used sources: writing his text in his own words, and simply following or altering what Mark said when it suited his purposes, or deliberately contradicting it to combat its message?
I find that John likewise used Luke this way, but even more to deliberately contradict and thus combat its message. Matthew similarly tried to combat and thus “fix” Mark by extensively adding material that would permit “reinterpreting” Mark as advancing a Torah-observant gospel—the exact opposite of what Mark originally intended.
Most of what Jesus is “known” for today comes from these later fabrications intended to override the original version of Jesus found in Mark. Mark gets mostly ignored. And yet his myth started it all, a lifetime after the fact, decades after Paul wrote his Epistles, which in turn were written decades after Jesus would supposedly have lived. And other than revelatory or theological data, and material not actually from or about Jesus, we actually can trace nothing in Mark to any sources prior. He appears to have created the whole thing. This is not a popular opinion in Biblical scholarship, which is still hung up on a desperate certainty that Mark must have been working from some collection of oral traditions; but that certainty is actually based on no evidence. And nothing based on no evidence should ever be treated as “certain.”
What do you all think?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 25, 2019 21:23:16 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 21:44:38 GMT -5
doesn't that just show the consistency the Lord employs in dealing with his children(the jews)....
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 25, 2019 21:53:16 GMT -5
doesn't that just show the consistency the Lord employs in dealing with his children(the jews).... Many believe, but if there was proof there would be not need for faith.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 25, 2019 23:12:18 GMT -5
It sounds like you are saying Jesus was not sacrificed for the sins of the world. Isn't that the basis of christianity? Yes, but still God didn’t kill his Son. Sounds as if you are trying to give god an out.
After all, -god had supposedly predetermined that Jesus would die presumable to "save" mankind.
If it didn't happen that way, then the whole story and the reason for it falls apart.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 26, 2019 0:27:16 GMT -5
Yes, but still God didn’t kill his Son. Sounds as if you are trying to give god an out.
After all, -god had supposedly predetermined that Jesus would die presumable to "save" mankind.
If it didn't happen that way, then the whole story and the reason for it falls apart. Regardless, I’ve tried to explain that in a post to Snow! EDIT: People don’t catch what Jesus said right. He said, “IF I be lifted up, I will DRAW ALL MEN to ME.” He didn’t “When I’m lifted up.” But then if the chief priests and Jews had received him as their Messiah, things would have been very different. First they’d never delivered him to the Romans and insisted that they crucify him. Secondly, had he ever be arrested by the Romans, the Jews would have fought to save. Him. His death was all dependent on what the Jews felt about the Messiah sent to them but they were caught in their sins as so said in Malachi, and thus were in nor frame of heart and mind to recognize their Messiah. Remember Jesus told his Apostles that should the Jews had ever heard and seen with their Hearts and minds and eyes, he would have healed them but he spoke in parables because they could ear nor could they understand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2019 0:39:04 GMT -5
Yes, but still God didn’t kill his Son. I still don't understand how come you say that? He was sacrificed on a cross, isn't that killing your son? He supposedly died didn't he? well your half right, God did plan the whole thing even the manner of his death but he didn't actually come down from heaven and beat Jesus then spike him to the cross himself...the romans and jews did that....
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 26, 2019 1:03:19 GMT -5
Sounds as if you are trying to give god an out.
After all, -god had supposedly predetermined that Jesus would die presumable to "save" mankind.
If it didn't happen that way, then the whole story and the reason for it falls apart. Regardless, I’ve tried to explain that in a post to Snow! EDIT: People don’t catch what Jesus said right. He said, “IF I be lifted up, I will DRAW ALL MEN to ME.” He didn’t “When I’m lifted up.” But then if the chief priests and Jews had received him as their Messiah, things would have been very different. First they’d never delivered him to the Romans and insisted that they crucify him. Secondly, had he ever be arrested by the Romans, the Jews would have fought to save. Him. His death was all dependent on what the Jews felt about the Messiah sent to them but they were caught in their sins as so said in Malachi, and thus were in nor frame of heart and mind to recognize their Messiah. Remember Jesus told his Apostles that should the Jews had ever heard and seen with their Hearts and minds and eyes, he would have healed them but he spoke in parables because they could ear nor could they understand. That's not an explanation! That is just trying to give "god" an out!
It is also not understanding the history of the Jews relationship to the Romans at that time.
Those Jews you talk speak of were specific Jews whom the Romans allowed special privileges as long as they would keep the peace among their fellow Jews!
They were specifically ordered by the Romans to keep down any rebellions against the Romans
Jesus was just one of many leaders of such insurrections.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 26, 2019 5:35:19 GMT -5
Regardless, I’ve tried to explain that in a post to Snow! EDIT: People don’t catch what Jesus said right. He said, “IF I be lifted up, I will DRAW ALL MEN to ME.” He didn’t “When I’m lifted up.” But then if the chief priests and Jews had received him as their Messiah, things would have been very different. First they’d never delivered him to the Romans and insisted that they crucify him. Secondly, had he ever be arrested by the Romans, the Jews would have fought to save. Him. His death was all dependent on what the Jews felt about the Messiah sent to them but they were caught in their sins as so said in Malachi, and thus were in nor frame of heart and mind to recognize their Messiah. Remember Jesus told his Apostles that should the Jews had ever heard and seen with their Hearts and minds and eyes, he would have healed them but he spoke in parables because they could ear nor could they understand. That's not an explanation! That is just trying to give "god" an out!
It is also not understanding the history of the Jews relationship to the Romans at that time.
Those Jews you talk speak of were specific Jews whom the Romans allowed special privileges as long as they would keep the peace among their fellow Jews!
They were specifically ordered by the Romans to keep down any rebellions against the Romans
Jesus was just one of many leaders of such insurrections.That’s their story! It’s just like him asking for swords when he knew the chief priests had come for him in order to fulfill the prophecy that he’d be numbered with the criminals! You’ve read extra-biblical accounts which back up the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Bible but you don’t understand how it all cane about to fulfill OT prophecies! Jesus knew that should the Jews took their last opportunity to turn back to the Lord. Things would hAve been different. Thus he put things in the “if”; of course he knew what was in man’s mind and he’d come to fulfill all things concerning him; but he had to give the ZHews one last chance. As he told the Samaritan woman. Salvation is if the Jews. That’s to be taken in two ways. One was the “if I be lifted up” would be because the Jews stayed in their sins as explained in Malachi. Or if they received him as their Messiah, salvation was still the Jew’s!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 26, 2019 12:18:08 GMT -5
That’s their story! It’s just like him asking for swords when he knew the chief priests had come for him in order to fulfill the prophecy that he’d be numbered with the criminals! How do you determine which story is the correct story? Many of the 'prophecies' were fulfilled because they were written not as predictions but as postdictions. Somehow the writer of Matthew decided that that the OT predicted Jesus needed to come out of Egypt so the family was sent to Egypt in the story to 'fulfill' the 'prophecy'. There is no mention of Egypt elsewhere. In fact the other writers have the family doing other things. The virgin birth was supposed to be an OT prediction. The source in Isaiah says many things but in Luke there is a verse: 31: And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus.If the prediction was from the OT why not follow it? Why name the child Jesus?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 26, 2019 13:33:11 GMT -5
I still don't understand how come you say that? He was sacrificed on a cross, isn't that killing your son? He supposedly died didn't he? It is was the chief priests and other important Jewish leaders who delivered him to Pilate and demanded he be put to death! Bible says Pilate even knew it was for envy. God was giving them one last chance to turn themselves back to him, but in Malachi it says God would give salvation to thee Gentile nations so that hopefully it would move the Jewish nation to jealousy and cause then to turn back to God who’s chosen them for his people. He moved them to jealousy alright, but they became evil instead of repentant. Yes, Jesus is our Redeemer, but the thing when they had him crucified they changed things for themselves, they will have to come to believing in Jesus Christ just like the Gentile’s do in order to know salvation. Jesus said salvation is of the Jews. That’s how and why! You see God had already told the children of Israel that if strangers desired to live and worship with them, that they should allow them to and that they should give them their own possessions even land as time went by. That the heathen strangers could come to the temple or tabernacle but could not enter the inner court. They could stay in the outer court and this is where Jesus often resorted to to teach. Are you saying that it wasn't part of God's plan to have his son crucified to save all those people since Adam and Eve that were sitting in limbo and all the Christians that were still to come? It's probably a good thing for all of you that believe he needed to die to be saved, that Pilate and the high priests did what they did wouldn't it be? Also, God is all knowing. Surely he knew exactly what was going to happen and like everything else I'm told, they had this planned from the beginning, didn't they?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 26, 2019 13:35:26 GMT -5
While all here sort out if the Bible can be proven has anyone here studied the many sources that have argued the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to Mark” based “some” its content on the Epistles of Paul. Its seems there is some reliable evidence for such a claim. “Mark” is of course the earliest Gospel we have any surviving text or even any real evidence of. It was then used as a source by all the other Gospels now in the New Testament. So it’s particularly important to know if Mark was writing independently of Pauline tradition, or actually mythologizing it. Would it be more accurate to say that the Gospels that came to be labeled “according to Matthew” and “according to Luke” are redactions of Mark, clearly intended originally to replace Mark—within the communities that produced, preferred, or promoted them? Has anyone here came to the conclusion that only the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to John” actually used Mark the way other ancient authors used sources: writing his text in his own words, and simply following or altering what Mark said when it suited his purposes, or deliberately contradicting it to combat its message? I find that John likewise used Luke this way, but even more to deliberately contradict and thus combat its message. Matthew similarly tried to combat and thus “fix” Mark by extensively adding material that would permit “reinterpreting” Mark as advancing a Torah-observant gospel—the exact opposite of what Mark originally intended. Most of what Jesus is “known” for today comes from these later fabrications intended to override the original version of Jesus found in Mark. Mark gets mostly ignored. And yet his myth started it all, a lifetime after the fact, decades after Paul wrote his Epistles, which in turn were written decades after Jesus would supposedly have lived. And other than revelatory or theological data, and material not actually from or about Jesus, we actually can trace nothing in Mark to any sources prior. He appears to have created the whole thing. This is not a popular opinion in Biblical scholarship, which is still hung up on a desperate certainty that Mark must have been working from some collection of oral traditions; but that certainty is actually based on no evidence. And nothing based on no evidence should ever be treated as “certain.” What do you all think? Well Paul's writings were the oldest known Christian writings. The 3 synoptic gospels are dated as later than Paul's letters etc. right?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 26, 2019 13:39:02 GMT -5
I still don't understand how come you say that? He was sacrificed on a cross, isn't that killing your son? He supposedly died didn't he? well your half right, God did plan the whole thing even the manner of his death but he didn't actually come down from heaven and beat Jesus then spike him to the cross himself...the romans and jews did that.... So he was just an accessory to the murder of Jesus? I have been told that everything was planned from the beginning because Jesus is God and so he was part of the plan to be killed in order to get those who had died since Adam out of limbo and save all the future sinning Christians? Right?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Oct 26, 2019 13:44:57 GMT -5
Tolkien and Rowling wrote much better fantasies.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 26, 2019 14:19:36 GMT -5
It is was the chief priests and other important Jewish leaders who delivered him to Pilate and demanded he be put to death! Bible says Pilate even knew it was for envy. God was giving them one last chance to turn themselves back to him, but in Malachi it says God would give salvation to thee Gentile nations so that hopefully it would move the Jewish nation to jealousy and cause then to turn back to God who’s chosen them for his people. He moved them to jealousy alright, but they became evil instead of repentant. Yes, Jesus is our Redeemer, but the thing when they had him crucified they changed things for themselves, they will have to come to believing in Jesus Christ just like the Gentile’s do in order to know salvation. Jesus said salvation is of the Jews. That’s how and why! You see God had already told the children of Israel that if strangers desired to live and worship with them, that they should allow them to and that they should give them their own possessions even land as time went by. That the heathen strangers could come to the temple or tabernacle but could not enter the inner court. They could stay in the outer court and this is where Jesus often resorted to to teach. Are you saying that it wasn't part of God's plan to have his son crucified to save all those people since Adam and Eve that were sitting in limbo and all the Christians that were still to come? It's probably a good thing for all of you that believe he needed to die to be saved, that Pilate and the high priests did what they did wouldn't it be? Also, God is all knowing. Surely he knew exactly what was going to happen and like everything else I'm told, they had this planned from the beginning, didn't they? Yes, he had things planned from before the world ever became. But he’d given the children of Israel many chances and I know that Jesus said he’d gathered them under his wings but they would not. What I’ve come to realize that had the Jews accepted Jesus as their God-anointed Messiah that things would have been changed up however it’s true he was to be the Passover Lamb and he also was to be the firstborn of the dead. I sure I God’s plans from before the world he’s allowed for changing his plans for he knows man’s minds and he’s already written the book of Life so he’s ever patient to keep that book as written. I feel the reason Jesus said “If I be lifted up.” That he was open to changes and prayerfully hoping the Jews would accept him as their Messiah. I note he never said “when”. So that tells me perhaps a contingency plan was in place.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 26, 2019 14:23:04 GMT -5
Are you saying that it wasn't part of God's plan to have his son crucified to save all those people since Adam and Eve that were sitting in limbo and all the Christians that were still to come? It's probably a good thing for all of you that believe he needed to die to be saved, that Pilate and the high priests did what they did wouldn't it be? Also, God is all knowing. Surely he knew exactly what was going to happen and like everything else I'm told, they had this planned from the beginning, didn't they? Yes, he had things planned from before the world ever became. But he’d given the children of Israel many chances and I know that Jesus said he’d gathered them under his wings but they would not. What I’ve come to realize that had the Jews accepted Jesus as their God-anointed Messiah that things would have been changed up however it’s true he was to be the Passover Lamb and he also was to be the firstborn of the dead. I sure I God’s plans from before the world he’s allowed for changing his plans for he knows man’s minds and he’s already written the book of Life so he’s ever patient to keep that book as written. I feel the reason Jesus said “If I be lifted up.” That he was open to changes and prayerfully hoping the Jews would accept him as their Messiah. I note he never said “when”. So that tells me perhaps a contingency plan was in place. I guess we have two different understandings of what all knowing means. To me, all knowing would be a God that knew from the very start that the Jews wouldn't change and that he would have to have his son crucified to save them.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 26, 2019 14:55:40 GMT -5
Yes, he had things planned from before the world ever became. But he’d given the children of Israel many chances and I know that Jesus said he’d gathered them under his wings but they would not. What I’ve come to realize that had the Jews accepted Jesus as their God-anointed Messiah that things would have been changed up however it’s true he was to be the Passover Lamb and he also was to be the firstborn of the dead. I sure I God’s plans from before the world he’s allowed for changing his plans for he knows man’s minds and he’s already written the book of Life so he’s ever patient to keep that book as written. I feel the reason Jesus said “If I be lifted up.” That he was open to changes and prayerfully hoping the Jews would accept him as their Messiah. I note he never said “when”. So that tells me perhaps a contingency plan was in place. I guess we have two different understandings of what all knowing means. To me, all knowing would be a God that knew from the very start that the Jews wouldn't change and that he would have to have his son crucified to save them. I’m not sure he’s exactly all-knowing. Remember when God appeared to Abraham in his tents door he said they’d come down to see what the noise was all about in Sodom and Gomorrah. He had a good idea and he had plans to destroy them but if they’d proven to be more compassionate then he just might have listened a bit more before destroying them but no they proved how vile they’d become over the two angels Lit took in. Also the children of Israel had turned more then once and continued as they should until another failing so I’m not sure he was exactly sure they wouldn’t turn if they seen their Messiah as to reality for them, He does become more all-knowing when we lift up such concerns before him in a continual basis. I mean we may pray once or twice about children victims of CSA but if we don’t raise it continually, how is he going to know that not all is well about that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2019 17:42:52 GMT -5
I guess we have two different understandings of what all knowing means. To me, all knowing would be a God that knew from the very start that the Jews wouldn't change and that he would have to have his son crucified to save them. I’m not sure he’s exactly all-knowing. Remember when God appeared to Abraham in his tents door he said they’d come down to see what the noise was all about in Sodom and Gomorrah. He had a good idea and he had plans to destroy them but if they’d proven to be more compassionate then he just might have listened a bit more before destroying them but no they proved how vile they’d become over the two angels Lit took in. Also the children of Israel had turned more then once and continued as they should until another failing so I’m not sure he was exactly sure they wouldn’t turn if they seen their Messiah as to reality for them, He does become more all-knowing when we lift up such concerns before him in a continual basis. I mean we may pray once or twice about children victims of CSA but if we don’t raise it continually, how is he going to know that not all is well about that? he is and he isn't because of free will he knows all the outcomes he just doesn't know 100% which we will choose....
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Oct 26, 2019 18:08:28 GMT -5
I’m not sure he’s exactly all-knowing. Remember when God appeared to Abraham in his tents door he said they’d come down to see what the noise was all about in Sodom and Gomorrah. He had a good idea and he had plans to destroy them but if they’d proven to be more compassionate then he just might have listened a bit more before destroying them but no they proved how vile they’d become over the two angels Lit took in. Also the children of Israel had turned more then once and continued as they should until another failing so I’m not sure he was exactly sure they wouldn’t turn if they seen their Messiah as to reality for them, He does become more all-knowing when we lift up such concerns before him in a continual basis. I mean we may pray once or twice about children victims of CSA but if we don’t raise it continually, how is he going to know that not all is well about that? he is and he isn't because of free will he knows all the outcomes he just doesn't know 100% which we will choose.... I think his all-knowing relates to those who keep in constant contact through prayer and meditation , because of those who have the witness within. For that witness is in essence as Jesus said that those who keep his commandments that the Father and he will come and dwell within. And that is accomplished by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Oct 26, 2019 20:35:51 GMT -5
While all here sort out if the Bible can be proven has anyone here studied the many sources that have argued the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to Mark” based “some” its content on the Epistles of Paul. Its seems there is some reliable evidence for such a claim. “Mark” is of course the earliest Gospel we have any surviving text or even any real evidence of. It was then used as a source by all the other Gospels now in the New Testament. So it’s particularly important to know if Mark was writing independently of Pauline tradition, or actually mythologizing it. Would it be more accurate to say that the Gospels that came to be labeled “according to Matthew” and “according to Luke” are redactions of Mark, clearly intended originally to replace Mark—within the communities that produced, preferred, or promoted them? Has anyone here came to the conclusion that only the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to John” actually used Mark the way other ancient authors used sources: writing his text in his own words, and simply following or altering what Mark said when it suited his purposes, or deliberately contradicting it to combat its message? I find that John likewise used Luke this way, but even more to deliberately contradict and thus combat its message. Matthew similarly tried to combat and thus “fix” Mark by extensively adding material that would permit “reinterpreting” Mark as advancing a Torah-observant gospel—the exact opposite of what Mark originally intended. Most of what Jesus is “known” for today comes from these later fabrications intended to override the original version of Jesus found in Mark. Mark gets mostly ignored. And yet his myth started it all, a lifetime after the fact, decades after Paul wrote his Epistles, which in turn were written decades after Jesus would supposedly have lived. And other than revelatory or theological data, and material not actually from or about Jesus, we actually can trace nothing in Mark to any sources prior. He appears to have created the whole thing. This is not a popular opinion in Biblical scholarship, which is still hung up on a desperate certainty that Mark must have been working from some collection of oral traditions; but that certainty is actually based on no evidence. And nothing based on no evidence should ever be treated as “certain.” What do you all think? Well Paul's writings were the oldest known Christian writings. The 3 synoptic gospels are dated as later than Paul's letters etc. right? To the best of my knowledge yes to all you say
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 26, 2019 23:18:10 GMT -5
While all here sort out if the Bible can be proven has anyone here studied the many sources that have argued the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to Mark” based “some” its content on the Epistles of Paul. Its seems there is some reliable evidence for such a claim. “Mark” is of course the earliest Gospel we have any surviving text or even any real evidence of. It was then used as a source by all the other Gospels now in the New Testament. So it’s particularly important to know if Mark was writing independently of Pauline tradition, or actually mythologizing it. Would it be more accurate to say that the Gospels that came to be labeled “according to Matthew” and “according to Luke” are redactions of Mark, clearly intended originally to replace Mark—within the communities that produced, preferred, or promoted them? Has anyone here came to the conclusion that only the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to John” actually used Mark the way other ancient authors used sources: writing his text in his own words, and simply following or altering what Mark said when it suited his purposes, or deliberately contradicting it to combat its message? I find that John likewise used Luke this way, but even more to deliberately contradict and thus combat its message. Matthew similarly tried to combat and thus “fix” Mark by extensively adding material that would permit “reinterpreting” Mark as advancing a Torah-observant gospel—the exact opposite of what Mark originally intended. Most of what Jesus is “known” for today comes from these later fabrications intended to override the original version of Jesus found in Mark. Mark gets mostly ignored. And yet his myth started it all, a lifetime after the fact, decades after Paul wrote his Epistles, which in turn were written decades after Jesus would supposedly have lived. And other than revelatory or theological data, and material not actually from or about Jesus, we actually can trace nothing in Mark to any sources prior. He appears to have created the whole thing. This is not a popular opinion in Biblical scholarship, which is still hung up on a desperate certainty that Mark must have been working from some collection of oral traditions; but that certainty is actually based on no evidence. And nothing based on no evidence should ever be treated as “certain.” What do you all think? Intelchips, I have never thought about it in those terms, but you have point.
I guess I was one of those who thought that those Biblical scholars were working on those oral traditions, dissecting the gospels & coming at least close to the right conclusions.
Of course, if Christianity were not such an all consuming interest in the Western world -there wouldn't have been such a need for scholars to feel like they had to figure it out in a realistic way to make sense of it all.
So maybe, intelchips you are on to something.
No one, scholars or anyone else, -attempts to dissect other religions to the extent that we do with Christianity.
|
|