Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps it is a nagging fear on the part of theists that heaven will turn out to be a hierarchy, one with varying levels of reward, dispersed on the basis of spiritual points compiled during your corporal phase. The less devout who were still on the positive side of the line but denied admission to the upper strata, must adjust to their eternal condition of happy but inferior.
A devotee could risk the above, or shoot for the grand prize by arriving at the Pearly Gates and presenting a lengthy list of atheists he or she has defeated on public forums. Surely such a willingness to devote a life to being a Word Warrior for Jesus will count heavily in getting into the really luxurious part of heaven.
What is the point in "defeating" an atheist? Why not just let them believe how they wish? Christians would be happier if they didn't try to convert everyone or beat them down into submission.
Generally yes. 'Fulfilled' seems to reflect the idea that the Law won't be changed (God's Law, see>) until Jesus dies and is resurrected and the law suddenly becomes replaced by Paulinist Christianity. This is the Christian take and I think heaven and earth passing away is impressive sounding but actually not a bit like The Jewish law will endure until the end of time (except that Jesus abolished it by his death and resurrection).
As you know i don't think Luke can have copied Matthew, but let's not do it all over again. But I may consider (despite his evident loathing for Jewry) that Matthew is indeed a Jewish Christian. At one time i thought that his reading the Septuagint (Greek) meant that he had to be Greek, but recently Mike 555 persuaded me that the Septuagint may be more like the Hebrew Torah of Jesus' day than the present Hebrew Torah is.
Mark's contribution, like Luke and Matthew (all the same) is synoptic original, but 'invention' whether it is claims based on OT passages or pulled out of a Christian hat is still like to be invention in my view. I'm just saying that 'my words will not pass away' is Synoptic and 'the law will not pass away'; is not in Mark and only common to Luke and Matthew and is a different 'origin', whether as i claim, it's Q, or as you claim, Luke is copying an individual idea of Matthew.
People should read the Old Testament several times before even opening the New Testament. I think a Jewish person reading it would automatically have better understanding because so much of it is based on the Old Testament. I think it's impossible to even reference everything because a lot of people wouldn't even recognize it.
But I think the basic story is understandable to anyone reading it fresh. This young savior figure is telling people that their old ways and bad traditions are passing away, and they need to practice peace, love, and charity. Just like their own prophets of old had tried to speak the same message. It's pretty simple.
So I am absurd because I know what it literally says, but you are not absurd for making an ad hoc excuse? You understand it to mean the second temple based on what? Because you want it to, because you do not like what the literal passage infers? That you 'somehow' understanding what it really means is what is absurd.
Because I have evidence (the gospel of Matthew itself) that the unknown author of Matthew was a Jewish Christian, and that he was saying the Pauline Christians were wrong with regard to the circumcision and dietary laws, and that ALL the OT laws remain until the very end.
The word for world γῆ means the earth, soil, land, country, or inhabitants of an area, and in over 200 uses of this word in the NT, it is always used in that context, and NEVER to mean the temple. So "everyone knows the symbolic meaning of the word" is blatant invention, and the fact that you need to invent this BS makes you look absurd and desperate.
It's a story. What do the same kinds of things in your own dreams represent?
Mainstream Bible scholars have already identified the New Testament as being inspired by the 2nd temple destruction. Just like the 1st temple inspired much of the Old Testament. This is decades or centuries old theology, not something I invented.
To me, it's the only possible thing that even makes sense.
Absurd. As though the Bible has an exclusive monopoly on that. In fact it hi -jacks the undeserved credit for solutions to those questions while proposing self -serving, unfeasible and downright bad alternatives to what humanist morality can come up with. The sooner the Bible is regarded as an academic study of ancient mythology, and not as a guide to modern life, the better.
I agree with you completely as far as the stories go. But the problem is that the Bible is a mixture of literature. Since it's not all stories I don't see how it could ever be completely regarded as mythology.
I agree with you completely as far as the stories go. But the problem is that the Bible is a mixture of literature. Since it's not all stories I don't see how it could ever be completely regarded as mythology.
What other stuff is in the Bible other than stories? Definitely do not know what you mean. If you mean that there are also facts in it than so do the Norse Sagas and Spider-Man. If it is lessons than so does a lot of literature. If the other Holy books contain this undescribed literature are they no longer mythology too.
Your post left me confused as to what you were trying to say
What other stuff is in the Bible other than stories? Definitely do not know what you mean. If you mean that there are also facts in it than so do the Norse Sagas and Spider-Man. If it is lessons than so does a lot of literature. If the other Holy books contain this undescribed literature are they no longer mythology too.
Your post left me confused as to what you were trying to say
I wouldn't exactly call the major prophets stories. Or any of the wisdom books.
The Psalms. Proverbs. Job. Ezekiel. These are books. I read them as independent books.
People should read the Old Testament several times before even opening the New Testament. I think a Jewish person reading it would automatically have better understanding because so much of it is based on the Old Testament. I think it's impossible to even reference everything because a lot of people wouldn't even recognize it.
But I think the basic story is understandable to anyone reading it fresh. This young savior figure is telling people that their old ways and bad traditions are passing away, and they need to practice peace, love, and charity. Just like their own prophets of old had tried to speak the same message. It's pretty simple.
My view is that people should understand the new testament before talking about the New testament. My view is also that almost nobody does. They all seem to think that it was a generally reliable record of the actual doings and saying of Jesus. My view is that it is not. It is the work of early Christians re-inventing the figure of Jesus to make him a Christian like themselves, spouting their views and opinions.
If so, studying the OT is of little assistance in understanding the NT. Understanding the writers' agenda is far more useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
It's a story. What do the same kinds of things in your own dreams represent?
Mainstream Bible scholars have already identified the New Testament as being inspired by the 2nd temple destruction. Just like the 1st temple inspired much of the Old Testament. This is decades or centuries old theology, not something I invented.
To me, it's the only possible thing that even makes sense.
I somewhat agree here. Part of the agenda of the gospel (s) is to show that the destruction of the Temple was the punishment of God for the Jewish rejection (as they saw it) of Jesus and encompassing his death.
My view is that people should understand the new testament before talking about the New testament. My view is also that almost nobody does. They all seem to think that it was a generally reliable record of the actual doings and saying of Jesus. My view is that it is not. It is the work of early Christians re-inventing the figure of Jesus to make him a Christian like themselves, spouting their views and opinions.
If so, studying the OT is of little assistance in understanding the NT. Understanding the writers' agenda is far more useful.
Their only "agenda" of the NT writers was to tell people that they should have been practicing social justice all along, or else none of these horrible things would have ever happened to them. And they might want to consider starting now.
The agenda of the church was completely different.
Their only "agenda" of the NT writers was to tell people that they should have been practicing social justice all along, or else none of these horrible things would have ever happened to them. And they might want to consider starting now.
The agenda of the church was completely different.
If by 'social Justice' you mean becoming Christians and following their rules, I agree. The agenda of the church of the time was their agenda too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
