18 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999lol, raj my friend, you were there contributing verses and reasoning, references and some unassailable logic, you experienced what it was like, it was almost unbelievable, id rather spend a thousand years in a desert island with ringwett, and maruder no1 and lemon yellow and badwater with some of Nietzsche critiques of Christianity being read to me every day as punishment than go through that again.
Lol .. here we go again.
You have stamina Robbie 🙂
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderyes you are correct most do agree but for reasons that i as yet do not really understand. it matters little, for it is the content that is important, to me anyway.
There is a surprisingly good article in wiki on the Gospel of Matthew: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
Hardly any serious scholar still asserts that Matthew was the first gospel written. Few believe that Matthew was the tax collector mentioned in the Gospel (who is called "Levi" in Mark).
I already c ...[text shortened]... And you still need to grow up. Or just cite your sources if you choose to cut and paste.
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's not out of topic; Jesus was a teacher destined to climb all the way up to his doom/ salvation as anybody who dared to bring up the Fire, therefore one has to be aware of the nature of the teacher and of the nature of the student in order to proceed
oh beetle, if i were but in Athens i should sit in some coffee shop, playing chess and interrogating your reasoning, alas the internet is a very poor medium.
when one considers your answer, i think that a mirror is a good analogy, for it seems to me that you are saying that the mind is capable of interpreting itself, is it not? how does this proce ...[text shortened]... jack the thread, i have been wanting for a long time to ask the illustrious beetle these things.
The apostle is right
The individual has to understand that he has to move beyond schemata, stories and symbols anyway. He has to proceed on his own and, although he is aware of the fact that he has a better view when seated on the soulders of the giants, he knows that he can see beyond delusion solely thanks to his own efforts. For, beyond the evaluation of the mind there is nothing
Cubism is an art which I cannot understand in person; I cannot decode it because its symbols are meaningless to me; however an individual familiar to this art can talk to us for weeks regarding the superb quality and the meanings of Cubism, which it will anyway remain Greek to me (huh)
I have to act or to act not, so I act or I act not, but anyway I have to be ready to face the consequences of my decisions. Awareness is the key
Nothing Holy
😵
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydFolks can believe what they want; however, you won't find established major seminaries (such as Harvard or Princeton) teaching that, and for good reason.
I would say that there is plenty of "argument" that Mark was NOT written before Matthew. Many believe that the Gospels are placed in the Bible ichronologically, starting with the oldest. This is at least as accepted as is the "Matk first" theory.
18 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Badwateris this the basis of your testimony, that major seminaries teach certain criteria? for it strikes me that many respected and accepted 'beliefs', taught by major seminaries are now refuted, for example Dr. Benjamin Spock, author of Baby and Child Care, a book which had been widely accepted and viewed as a 'bible', of child rearing, yet later he retracted and took part of the blame for the lack of parental firmness and the resulting delinquency. He said blame rested on the experts, 'the child psychiatrists, psychologists, teachers, social workers and pediatricians like myself.'
Folks can believe what they want; however, you won't find established major seminaries (such as Harvard or Princeton) teaching that, and for good reason.
Was not also Timothy Leary an assistant professor at Berkeley (1950-1955), a director of psychiatric research at the Kaiser Family Foundation (1955-1958), and a lecturer in psychology at Harvard University (1959-1963), yet if we are to follow this learned mans advice we would need to seek therapy through the use of hallucinogenic stimulants.
i am not saying that the learned seminaries in question are wrong, but that one cannot put emphasis simply on the credentials as proof in themselves, although they do add weight.
therefore in view of the subsequent argument, one would need to state that Origen did not know what he was talking about and that Eusebius was mistaken when he quoted him. who are we to believe, those who lived much, much closer to the times, or those who use primarily speculative means to deduce their conclusions, as yet i still do not understand why is is stated that Mark wrote his gospel before Matthew, although i do understand that Origen and Eusebius just may have been correct.
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by black beetlewell said beetle dude, yeh cubism was just a good idea, if i can remember my studies, it was intended to render a more complete 'picture', because the canvas is essentially two dimensional, whereas we see in three. so if you split the canvas up, you can portray the side of the violin, the back of the violin, the top, the bottom view etc etc it made for quite strange art, a good conceptual idea, but in practise, well, who can say?
It's not out of topic; Jesus was a teacher destined to climb all the way up to his doom/ salvation as anybody who dared to bring up the Fire, therefore one has to be aware of the nature of the teacher and of the nature of the student in order to proceed
The apostle is right
The individual has to understand that he has to move beyond schemata, stor ...[text shortened]... to be ready to face the consequences of my decisions. Awareness is the key
Nothing Holy
😵
18 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePerhaps this will help:
is this the basis of your testimony, that major seminaries teach certain criteria? for it strikes me that many respected and accepted 'beliefs', taught by major seminaries are now refuted, for example Dr. Benjamin Spock, author of Baby and Child Care, a book which had been widely accepted and viewed as a 'bible', of child rearing, yet later he retra ore Matthew, although i do understand that Origen and Eusebius just may have been correct.
"Markan Priority" - For most of Christian history, people thought that Matthew was the first and oldest Gospel, and that Mark was a later, shorter version of the same basic message. From the mid-19th century until today, however, most scholars are convinced that Mark is the first and oldest Gospel (at least in the final version, as we have it today), and that Matthew and Luke are later expansions of Mark. Why?
Mark's Gospel contains several grammatical, literary, historical, and geographical difficulties (minor errors) that are not found in Matthew and/or Luke. If Matthew was first, it is harder to understand how Mark could have introduced these errors; but if Mark was first, it is easy to see how Matthew and/or Luke wanted to and were able to correct Mark's minor mistakes.
Mark's Gospel contains several episodes that are obscure (4:26-29; 14:51-52) or make Jesus look crazy (3:19-21), magical (7:32-37), or weak (8:22-26). If Matthew was first, it is harder to explain why Mark added these strange episodes; but if Mark was first, it is easy to understand why both Matthew and Luke omitted them.
Mark's basic chronological/geographical structure is the same as in the other two Synoptics; but the material found in both Matthew and Luke (but not in Mark) is in very different orders in these two Gospels. If Matthew was first and Mark second, it is hard to understand why Luke would have kept the same order for all the material found in both Matthew and Mark, but substantially rearranged all the other material found in Matthew but not in Mark. If Mark was first, however, then it is easy to explain how Matthew and Luke inserted the extra material they have in common (from the Q source?) into Mark's overall outline, although in significantly different ways.
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm
Contrary to what Pink Floyd claimed, the idea that Matthew was the first Gospel written is almost universally rejected except by hard core evangelicals who can't bear the thought that the order in the Bible is incorrect. They have no evidence to support such a claim except that some Church fathers writing more than 100 years after the Gospels were written believed it.
Common sense would suggest that if Mark was a short version of Matthew he certainly wouldn't have left out the Virgin Birth. And as the incident we were discussing shows, Matthew added words to what Mark had written to dovetail with Matthew's theological theories (i.e. adding the phrase "Son of the Living God" to Peter's statement "You are the Christ [Messiah]".
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderyes quite, but it fails to take into account that Matthew is reported to have written his gospel first in Hebrew, which sadly is no longer extant. and secondly that Matthews account was a reproduction of Marks, which seems simply to be based on 'minor', differences and their 'correction'. no sorry i am too dim, perhaps i will never know? but thanks for trying!
Perhaps this will help:
"Markan Priority" - For most of Christian history, people thought that Matthew was the first and oldest Gospel, and that Mark was a later, shorter version of the same basic message. From the mid-19th century until today, however, most scholars are convinced that Mark is the first and oldest Gospel (at least in th ...[text shortened]... rase "Son of the Living God" to Peter's statement "You are the Christ [Messiah]".
18 Dec 08
5 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie======================================
whatever you say, i have no energy left at present to dispute any of these claims, although i would like to. i will easily find the specific references, but after having a discussion with jaywill which lasted a thousand years i have a distaste for it and have resigned myself to the fact that if people want to believe that Christ is almighty God then side tomorrow and its freezing, we just got a wii and i want to play sega bass fishing, oh man.
however, i would like to point out that the reference in Isaiah, to everlasting father, is used nowhere else, and specifically of Christ, never of the almighty.
======================================
We've been through this before.
The Almighty God and the Mighty God are the same God - Jehovah God - Jeremiah 32:18 - Exodus 6:2
Where you see Mighty God you can rest assured that that is the same God as God Almighty.
To say "But Isaiah 9:6 talks about the everlasting Father being the Mighty God, not the Almighty God" is just making weak excuses.
Here is one passage I don't think I spoke to you about yet:
Matthew 23:37 records Jesus' lament over the city of Jerusalem:
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"
The footenote in the Recovery Version aptly points out:
It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young (Isa.31:5; Deut.32:11-12). Hence, when the Lord Jesus said, "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings," He indicated that He was God Himself.
Isaiah 31:5 starts out "Like flying birds So Jehovah of hosts will protect Jerusalem; He will protect and deliver it; He will pass over and rescue it."
Jehovah will do this. Jehovah is the Mighty God (Jer. 32:18) just as Mighty God is the born child in Isaiah 9:6. Jehovah is also God Almighy Exo. 6:2 God Almighty appeared to men in (Gen. 17:1; 35:11; 48:3).
In John 14 "Me" is used by Jesus to designate the Father - (John 14:9)
Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us.
Jesus said to him, Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father, how is it that you say, Show us the Father?"
Of course some will object:
But Jesus obeys the Father.
But Jesus was sent by the Father.
But Jesus prays to the Father.
But Jesus goes to the Father.
But Jesus says the Father is greater than He.
Yes. Those passages I choose to believe also. I choose to believe them and that to see the "Me" (Jesus), is to see the Father. I choose to believe both truths. Both are stated.
Why can't I believe all that the Bible speaks? Why do I have to accept one side of the truth and deny the other?
So the child born is the Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6. And the Son given is the Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6.
Amen. No argument.
18 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillthe mighty god and the almighty god are the same, yer bum jaywill, yes we have been through it before, and if you want to believe it , then be my guest. i do not profess to offer even one word in defence, trinitarians i have found are like concrete, all mixed up and hardened, this has been my experience, no offence my friend, really, we may yet have a discussion of 'the rich man and Lazarus'.
[b]======================================
however, i would like to point out that the reference in Isaiah, to everlasting father, is used nowhere else, and specifically of Christ, never of the almighty.
======================================
We've been through this before.
The Almighty God and the Mighty God are the same God - Je And the Son given is the Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6.
Amen. No argument.[/b]
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm sorry divegeester that you were subject to this type of 'reasoning', its not usually good practise to post something without rhyme or reason, but it does happen a lot on the forum. we must bear and forbear. although if we could confirm, where the superstition is, where in essence the contradiction is and how it relates to nonsense, we should do better.
Because it is superstitious, self-contradictory nonsense.
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by BadwaterI would hardly hold those two establishments as pinnacles of knowledge concerning the New testament (or anything else for that matter).
Folks can believe what they want; however, you won't find established major seminaries (such as Harvard or Princeton) teaching that, and for good reason.
And I never said the idea that Matk is the oldest Gospel was incorrect. I only pointed out that,to say that Mark is "almost universally accepted" as being so is simply wrong.
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobie===================================
the mighty god and the almighty god are the same, yer bum jaywill, yes we have been through it before, and if you want to believe it , then be my guest. i do not profess to offer even one word in defence, trinitarians i have found are like concrete, all mixed up and hardened, this has been my experience, no offence my friend, really, we may yet have a discussion of 'the rich man and Lazarus'.
the mighty god and the almighty god are the same, yer bum jaywill, yes we have been through it before, and if you want to believe it , then be my guest.
======================================
I want to believe it because that is what the Bible teaches me.
Because the revelation of the Bible shows that - that is why I want to believe it.
Do you have a reason why I should NOT want to believe it?
===================================
i do not profess to offer even one word in defence, trinitarians i have found are like concrete, all mixed up and hardened, this has been my experience, no offence my friend, really, we may yet have a discussion of 'the rich man and Lazarus'.
======================================
Whether we label this belief "trinitarian" or something else is beside the point.
What is not beside the point to many of us is that Jehovah the Mighty God, the Almghty God, became a man - Jesus.
Call it a Foobeterian for all I care. I want to believe what Isaiah 9:6 states.