Originally posted by jaywillThis is an extraneous debate that FreakyKBH wants to import into this quite separate discussion presumably because he felt it was not settled to his satisfaction in the earlier thread. But so be it.
What "story" had to be re-written ?
The New Testament has not been re-written to accomodate for the longer than expected return of Christ to the earth physically.
[b] Theologies were adjusted for sure. But no "story" was re-written. If you have proof that the "story" was re-written tell us where we can read the early story and the latter re ...[text shortened]... ry.
The "story" is the same old story as far back as the New Testament has existed.[/b]
Yes, once the texts were established and selected for the Christians they stabilised, quite so.
Christianity does not hang on the Gospels or even the New Testament alone. In some contexts it is convenient (arguably far too convenient) to restrict debate to what Jesus said but that is not the sum of the scriptures, as we both know. Christians soon switch to Acts, Paul, Peter, or indeed the Old Testament when that becomes favourable to their case.
The Old Testament is a compilation of work by many authors accumulated over centuries and in some cases, notably Genesis, it is generally agreed that several texts were put together, without resolving apparent contradictions and arguably without seeing any need to do so precisely because it was not treated as a literal account at the time, but as a mythical one. Jews and Muslims restrict their attention to only a few from the Old Testament and certainly would have little time for example for the Acts. There were other gospels that were not included in the Christian Bible and might have been (I make no commeent on their merits, just observe the fact). At least one book (Revelations) (I know it's not a gospel thanks) is arguably a rather unfortunate inclusion.
None of this is contentious. FreakyKBH got upset when I compared this (as a matter of curiosity) to the fact that there has only ever been one Qu'ran which every Muslim refers to despite immense doctrinal and sectarian differences. It is curious - I am not sure how much it matters.
The period between the death of Jesus and the production of the Gospels was a time of changing thoughts, as set out for example in the Acts. It is absolutely the case that Paul devised an original interpretation of the life of Jesus and its significance which is set out in Romans, for instance, and which he visited Jerusalem to discuss and seek agreement with Peter, James and others, as mentioned in Romans. Peter's letter, which we have referred to in this thread earlier, refers to the opinion (which he challenges) that Paul and he were not in agreement, which can only be taken to imply that someone somewhere had that opinion and reported it to him, surely?
While Christianity was coming into shape, through a period of confusion, other sects and religious groups were also swirling about and forming their own views, with Jesus playing a part for some and not others. The Jewish faith itself was in turmoil long before the destruction of [Herod's] Temple by the Romans. That event did not take place in a historical void.
In respect of this period, when I refer to "changing story" I am not referring to edits and rewrites of scripture but using perfectly normal language to describe what is not only accepted wisdom but also set out clearly in the Acts and in Romans.
In your words, "Theology was adjusted." I agree and accept that my phrase is more loaded with negative connotations than yours. I acknowledge that this is because I am sceptical.
But for the record was I not writing in a hostile tone about this matter, since when you refer back I was offering a fairly conventional response to the OP with reference to the scripture quoted and in terms not at odds with what FreakyKBH wrote. In other words, I consider my response would be accepted by many Christians as a reasonable one.
Originally posted by menace71Well no not necessarily. But it could be literal as God has used for example the sun in the past for his purpose as in making it stand still.
The signs are of an astronomical type right? You say all will see these signs from earth right? Then why would it be so hard to believe every eye will see Jesus when he returns? Maybe his return is part of these signs.
Manny
And the darkening of the stars, along with the sun and moon, is a frequent figure used in prophetic warnings of disaster brought as a result of God’s judgment. (Isa 13:10; Eze 32:7; Re 6:12, 13; 8:12; compare Job 9:6, 7.)
And stars are also spoken of as falling or being cast down to earth. (Mt 24:29; Re 8:10; 9:1; 12:4)
Signs in the sun, moon, and stars are foretold as evidence of the time of the end.—Lu 21:25.
So stars are not always literal and the scriptures are not specific on that at this time.
Also at that time Peter explained that this was in fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, saying: “‘And in the last days,’ God says, ‘I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every sort of flesh . . . And I will give portents in heaven above and signs on earth below, blood and fire and smoke mist, the sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and illustrious day of Jehovah arrives.’” (Ac 2:16-20)
And the issue of Jesus being seen or returning to earth as a man again has been discussed many times and exhaustively.
But if one really reads what the scriptures are saying and describing during this time period as he explained it to his followers, he says these are "signs of his presence". This means that he is "already" present as King and ruling when you see these things happening. The signs do not come first and he arrives later. It's actually him taking his place as King that starts these signs or events in motion.
Originally posted by menace71How could everyone on the planet see jesus returning OR some celestial event? Think about it. what about the people on the other side of the planet?
The signs are of an astronomical type right? You say all will see these signs from earth right? Then why would it be so hard to believe every eye will see Jesus when he returns? Maybe his return is part of these signs.
Manny
Unless they beam it on Fox, I suppose...😛
Originally posted by karoly aczelHe might come in a spiral, orbiting around and around as he approached, so everyone could see...
How could everyone on the planet see jesus returning OR some celestial event? Think about it. what about the people on the other side of the planet?
Unless they beam it on Fox, I suppose...😛
Matthew 24:30-31 And then (((((( the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven )))), and then all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.
Just a point to bring out here about Jesus being seen. Verse 30 says "a sign of the Son will appear", correct? Not the Son himself, but "a sign of him" that would be seen by the all nations as a whole and one that would be upsetting to the nations as a whole. So with that point of it being a sign of him being made first, then without this statement contradicting itself in the next verse, it would still be a sign that they all would see. Not Jesus himself.
The Bible also says Jesus was raised as a spirit and would never have flesh again that could ever be corrupted. Angels are also spirit creatures that cannot be seen. Verse 31 says he will send them forth to gather the "Chosen ones". Angels are spirit creatures we cannot see as Jesus is a spirit creature we cannot see.
========================================
The period between the death of Jesus and the production of the Gospels was a time of changing thoughts, as set out for example in the Acts.
====================================
The period between the resurrection of Jesus and the writing down of the Gospels would be a better description.
The "changing thoughts" as seen in the book of Acts, is the transition from the realization that the old covenant was really over to the fuller realization of the new covenant.
This transition time is not unlike others in the history of God's peoples' response. We are slow. It should only have taken 11 days to journey from the Red Sea into Canaan. The slow response required 40 years. On God's side He is ready. On His peoples' side, we are often slow.
So James, and enfluencial elder of the church in Jerusalem, still had one foot in the old covenant. But because of his natural relationship with Jesus, being His brother, was understandably looked upon as being some sort of reliable communicator of the message of Jesus.
His piety was great. I am sure I couldn't match him. But he was lingering in the old covenant and somewhat proud of it, boasting that the church in Jerusalem had thousands that were zealous for the law of Moses.
He was not as clear as Paul was that the old covenant was really over and the new covenant as Christ taught, was now the way for the church to move forward. This was a matter of the disciples "catching up" to the gospel that Christ had taught. The Apostle Paul was a clear early one to grasp the real nature of the new covenant. I don't mean that he was alone.
I do mean that it is sovereign of God that the Holy Spirit used this man Paul to author some 13 of the 27 New Testament books rather than James.
But I would like to see just what it is in the book of Romans you consider new to Christ's message. I am pretty sure that whatever you find in Romans, an early New Testament letter, could be essentially found in the Gospels which though written afterwards, furnished the traditions upon which Paul built his doctrinal summary of new covenant faith.
=======================================
It is absolutely the case that Paul devised an original interpretation of the life of Jesus and its significance which is set out in Romans, for instance, and which he visited Jerusalem to discuss and seek agreement with Peter, James and others,
===================================
Paul went to seek confirmation that he was teaching the same thing that the 12 apostles had been teaching. He wasn't asking for agreement on something new. He was checking that he was orthodox according to the earlier apostles.
As it stands he was doing what they had been doing, only perhaps better. And since Christ was still alive and working through His apostles it should not surprise the believers at least. Christ's earthly ministry had come to a completion with His ascension. But Christ in resurrection and ascension carried on His heavenly ministry through the apostles, including Paul and his co-workers.
Paul pioneered deep into the experience of living by the indwelling resurrected Christ. What he taught was what he lived. His message and his life were the same. And they were not full of new inventions but first hand experience of the available and living Jesus Christ who had become for us "a life giving Spirit" .
"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) which teaching was entirely harmonious with the Gospel of John, particularly chapters 14 - 16, and 20.
Would you show me some new invention in the book of Romans ? I mean something that I could not find in the four gospels.
==================================
as mentioned in Romans. Peter's letter, which we have referred to in this thread earlier, refers to the opinion (which he challenges) that Paul and he were not in agreement, which can only be taken to imply that someone somewhere had that opinion and reported it to him, surely?
==================================
I strongly do not agree with your attempt to drive a wedge between Peter and Paul. Yes, Paul scolded Peter the elder apostle to his face. But that scolding Peter seems to have accepted with humility and as justified.
Peter recommends Paul's letters and even refers to them as Scripture.
" And count the long suffering of our Lord to be salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you,
As also in all his letters, seaking in them concerning these things, in which some things are hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable twist, as also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." ( 2 Peter 3:15,16)
I don't see Peter complaining that Paul was off teaching something heterodox. I see Peter speaking postively about Paul's contribution.
I do see Peter admiting that some of the things Paul wrote are hard to be understood which some twisted. But these types twist other Scriptures as well.
Perhaps he was talking about the slander that Paul was teaching "Let us sin that grace of God should abound". These twistings and slanders are evident in the way Paul outlines his Christian doctrine in Romans.
I don't see Peter wary, suspicious, bothered but rather humbly acknowledging the constructive contribution of this younger Christian worker. And it is all the more striking that he should given that Paul rebuked the elder apostle publically once in a moment of Peter's weakness.
Originally posted by karoly aczelI should not joke but it reminds of that Robbin Williams show where he talks about the second coming of Jesus. He was like the first time he was gentle and mild long hair like a hippy preaching peace but the second time he will be like Charles Bronson and he'll be saying I'm God damn mad!!!! 🙂
How could everyone on the planet see jesus returning OR some celestial event? Think about it. what about the people on the other side of the planet?
Unless they beam it on Fox, I suppose...😛
Manny
Originally posted by galveston75Yet the angels (spirit beings as you like to say) can take on appearance and as you said in a different thread the angels that is or how else could they procreate to create a hybrid race of giants? Your statements are contradictory.
Matthew 24:30-31 And then (((((( the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven )))), and then all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen o ...[text shortened]... s". Angels are spirit creatures we cannot see as Jesus is a spirit creature we cannot see.
Manny
Originally posted by jaywillWould you show me some new invention in the book of Romans ? I mean something that I could not find in the four gospels.
Remind me of the dates for Paul and for the Gospels before relying on this line of argument for anything much. What you say implies they were written before Paul's teaching and / or independently of this and as such provide an alternative evidence source. In reality they are part of the same process of what you call Theological Adjustment.
In any event, what Paul contributed was not an alternative account of the life of Jesus (he did not produce a rival gospel) but a novel way to interpret his life as a basis for a new religion. The weight he gives to the Resurrection is not reflected in all four Gospels for example and indeed there are differences of emphasis between the Gospels (trivial point but needs remarking).
Generally the points you make do not appear to be at odds with what I am saying despite their tone. You do impute to me things I have not said so I do not need to defend. As long as this thread remains on topic however, we are probably in complete agreement.
Originally posted by galveston75Clearly you are under some sort of gag order as you have essentially refused to state what signs you see. But don't you think your above statement might violate your gag order?
Again the signs are cleary stated and explained in the Bible and are clearly being seen by all in the news daily.
Originally posted by finnegan...and I am not clear even why you think what I wrote is at odds with what you wrote in the context of this thread.
Excellent -
This whole business of signs is expressly poo-pooed in the Bible, with many [b] well-meaning but ultimately bone-headed Christians taking passages completely out of context in their vain and desperate efforts to somehow certify their faith.
so you would appear then to be at one with me in challenging Galveston75, who wrote: ...[text shortened]... ar even why you think what I wrote is at odds with what you wrote in the context of this thread.[/b]
Simple: you were, by quoting Peter's letter to some early misguided Christians eager to see Christ's return, attempting to bolster your claim that the NT was subject to re-writes--- as though this passage was in some form or fashion an example of a directional change, which it clearly is not.
Originally posted by finneganThis is an extraneous debate that FreakyKBH wants to import...
This is an extraneous debate that FreakyKBH wants to import into this quite separate discussion presumably because he felt it was not settled to his satisfaction in the earlier thread. But so be it.
Yes, once the texts were established and selected for the Christians they stabilised, quite so.
Christianity does not hang on the Gospels or even the Ne ...[text shortened]... words, I consider my response would be accepted by many Christians as a reasonable one.
Hold the phone there, pilgrim. The subject of re-writes was introduced by you, not anyone else. I'm merely the guy who challenged you on it.
...because he felt it was not settled to his satisfaction in the earlier thread. But so be it.
I 'feel' that way only because you've failed to support your assertions otherwise.
Yes, once the texts were established and selected for the Christians they stabilised, quite so.
Gee, that almost sounds like you're trying to infer the intransigence of the texts prior to that time.
Christians soon switch to Acts, Paul, Peter, or indeed the Old Testament when that becomes favourable to their case.
Christians, as is the case with all sub-classes of homosapien, do everything they can to support their various takes on things. Now, replace "Christian" with, say, "finnegan" and either sentence remains true. Christianity, however, is not subject to such vacillation.
...in some cases, notably Genesis, it is generally agreed that several texts were put together, without resolving apparent contradictions and arguably without seeing any need to do so precisely because it was not treated as a literal account at the time, but as a mythical one.
Notably, indeed. It's funny
Furthermore, your ill-advised use of the term "contradiction" serves only to highlight your ignorance of ancient Hebrew customs and literature. Ditto your unfounded blanket characterization of the supposed mythical view of ancient Jews.
At least one book (Revelations) (I know it's not a gospel thanks) is arguably a rather unfortunate inclusion.
Too bad you weren't around to chime in when the canon was set. I'm sure they would have sat enraptured at your feet while you waxed philosophically on about motifs and allegories inspired by food allergies.
FreakyKBH got upset when I compared this (as a matter of curiosity) to the fact that there has only ever been one Qu'ran which every Muslim refers to despite immense doctrinal and sectarian differences.
Whoa. What a load of crap comes out of the keyboard in front of you. In that other thread, I challenged you on this issue, specifically, you said the Bible was subject to re-writes, whereas the Qu'ran was not, thereby rendering one less reliable than the other. On the other thread, you retreated from the view
But for the record was I not writing in a hostile tone about this matter, since when you refer back I was offering a fairly conventional response to the OP with reference to the scripture quoted and in terms not at odds with what FreakyKBH wrote. In other words, I consider my response would be accepted by many Christians as a reasonable one.
You may not consider your writing hostile, but it is far from reasonable or objective. While it may be difficult to simply report, it is possible to state the facts: some early Christians had their priorities in places other than where intended by the Lord Jesus Christ. Shame on them? They're in good company, because--- as jaywill has pointed out--- the apostles were a bit clueless themselves. Did Paul invent Christianity? Hardly! He was out for their blood, until the Lord Jesus Christ Himself intervened and showed him the light. The point is, as the administration changed and we moved from one dispensation to another, some folks had it completely wrong, some partially right. If the goal is to 'be right,' then one merely follows the commands: few but crucial. The person following the commands might miss the minor stuff, but he'll always get the major stuff.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you not have a Bible of your own that you can read for yourself these things described by Jesus in Matthew the 24th chapters as well as the other scriptures I've posted here?
Clearly you are under some sort of gag order as you have essentially refused to state what signs you see. But don't you think your above statement might violate your gag order?
Any book store will have a nice verity of Bibles you can buy and read this account for yourself...........
Originally posted by galveston75More doom mongering again i see. What a cheery man you are.
Do you not have a Bible of your own that you can read for yourself these things described by Jesus in Matthew the 24th chapters as well as the other scriptures I've posted here?
Any book store will have a nice verity of Bibles you can buy and read this account for yourself...........
It must be a little depressing looking at the world through your 'death and destruction' goggles all day.
(PS, variety, not verity.)