Resolution - to read the Bible

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
unsafe, it's not "believe as I will", it's "let's have a look at contemporary scholarship". We can all "believe as we will". But if you're going to argue on a public board about religion, then perhaps you should have some back up to your beliefs.

And we'll both have different sources. But you'll notice that mine are continuing and contemporary.
 
Continuing reading – Matthew 16, Mark 8 and Luke 9:18 – 27. These passages again seem to indicate that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source.
I agree with Bette's dating of the three synoptic gospels – so many of the scholarly articles I have read agree with this dating that I considered it almost as a given.
Mark chapter 8 begins with the story of the feeding of the 4000 as told by Matthew in yesterday's reading. This surprised me because I thought that only Matthew told the story.
Mark continues on, and Matthew joins him, with the crowds demanding a sign, the Pharisees questioning Jesus, and Jesus response about bread and yeast. (This has some similarities to John's dissertation about bread. It seems that, while John did not use the other Gospels as a source, he was aware of the stories being shared in the writings of the other Gospels.)
Despite having witnessed old feeding of the multitudes, the disciples were still concerned that they did not have enough bread with them in the boat as they crossed the sea. Jesus scolds them for their lack of faith.
Here Mark inserts a short story about Jesus healing of a blind man. This is not picked up at this time by Matthew.
With gospels of Matthew and Mark I now joined by Luke 9 starting at verse 18. All three tell of Jesus asking the disciples what people were saying about him and what the disciples thought. Peter declares Jesus to be the Messiah, the son of God. Jesus neither confirms or denies this, but tells them to tell no one.
Jesus then tells them that following him will not be easy and he predicts his death. They find this hard to accept.Jesus reassures them that they shall not taste death until they experience the kingdom of God.
 
BetteTheRed -------You and Seeler can believe as you will


unsafe says ----my belief is in the Scriptures not in any Contemporary scholars or scholarship ------We will all know the real truth when we die and meet our Creator -----so until then all us humans can do is speculate --and that is the real truth


unsafe says and posted article -------this is another take on when the Gospels were written ----and-----Take Note OF the last paragraph which for me is the way I feel about humans trying to figure out things that is a mystery for us humans to try and figure out actually ---If God wanted us to know the actual dates of when His words were written down He would have provided the proper dates for us ----Period


unsafe says ------Note in the article below ----it says some scholars believe -----all speculation ----only God knows the truth of the right dates --your contemporary Scholarships are just grasping at straws ------

When were the Gospels written?
When were the Gospels written?

Question: "When were the Gospels written?"

Answer: It is important to understand that the dating of the Gospels and other New Testament books is at best an educated guess and at worst foolish speculation. For example, suggested dates for the writing of the Gospel of Matthew range from as early as A.D. 40 to as late as A.D. 140. This wide range of dates from scholars indicates the subjective nature of the dating process. Generally, one will find that the presuppositions of the scholars greatly influence their dating of the Gospels.

For example, in the past many liberal theologians have argued for a later dating of many of the New Testament books than is probably warranted or valid, in an attempt to discredit or cast doubts upon the content and authenticity of the Gospel accounts. On the other hand, there are many scholars who look to a much earlier dating of the New Testament books. There are some that believe there is good evidence to support the view that the whole New Testament, including Revelation, was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. It is our contention that the evidence supports the earlier dating more than it does the later dating.

There are scholars who believe the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as ten to twelve years after the death of Christ. Those who hold to this earlier dating of Matthew believe he first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and then it was later translated into Greek. One of the evidences of this earlier dating of Matthew’s Gospel is that early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius recorded that Matthew first wrote his gospel for Jewish believers while he was still in Israel. In fact Eusebius (a bishop of Caesarea and known as the father of church history) reported that Matthew wrote his Gospel before he left Israel to preach in other lands, which Eusebius says happened about 12 years after the death of Christ. Some scholars believe that this would place the writing of Matthew as early as A.D. 40-45 and as late as A.D. 55.

Even if the Gospels were not written until 30 years after Christ’s death, that would still place the writing of them prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This presents no major problem with their authority or accuracy. Passing on oral traditions and teachings was commonplace in the Jewish culture of that day, and memorization was highly cultivated and practiced. Also, the fact that even at that time there would have been a considerable number of eyewitnesses around to dispute and discredit any false claims, and the fact that none of the “hard sayings” of Jesus were taken from the Gospel accounts, further supports their accuracy. Had the Gospels been edited before being written down, as some liberal scholars contend, then it was a very poor job. The writers left far too many “hard sayings,” and culturally unacceptable and politically incorrect accounts that would need explaining. An example of this is that the first witnesses of the resurrection were women, who were not considered reliable witnesses in the culture of that day.

The bottom line for Christians is this—whether the Gospels were written soon after the death of Christ, or not until 30 years after his death, does not really matter, because their accuracy and authority does not rest on when they were written but on what they are: the divinely inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). We should also remember that one of the promises Jesus gave His disciples was that He would send them “another helper,” the Holy Spirit, who would teach them all things and “bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:26). So, whether it was few years or many after Jesus’ death that the Gospels were written, we can have total confidence and faith in their completeness and accuracy, knowing that they were written by “men moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21), who accurately recorded the very words of God.
 
Yes, this is quite the accomplishment, seeler. I've enjoyed your travels through scripture.

unsafe, thanks for providing a source for your thoughts about dating, even though I disagree with its conclusions. I do not believe that the Christian Scripture is the "Word of God". I believe that they are our religious history and worthy of respect and study. To me, context means a great deal, so it's important to my understanding of scripture to understand the historical matrix within which it was written.

Because of the diversity of these beliefs, it is highly unlikely we'll agree on much.
 
BetteTheRed Your Quote ----- Because of the diversity of these beliefs, it is highly unlikely we'll agree on much.

unsafe says -----I so agree :)

Your Quote -----unsafe, thanks for providing a source for your thoughts about dating, even though I disagree with its conclusions.

unsafe says ---your welcome ---and that is your right to disagree -----Like I said all we humans can do is Speculate on dates when it comes to Scripture writings ----- No Human has the true Dates of when the Gospels were written -----only God knows


Your Quote ------I do not believe that the Christian Scripture is the "Word of God".


unsafe says ----Again that is your right to believe that --------Just because you and others don't believe that Scripture is the Word of God does not make it so ----The Scripture itself says It is the Word of God and who are we humans to say the Scripture lies ------


Your Quote ------ I believe that they are our religious history and worthy of respect and study. To me, context means a great deal, so it's important to my understanding of scripture to understand the historical matrix within which it was written.


unsafe says and posted scripture ----You can believe they are only Religious History --worthy of respect and study only but that doesn't change what the Scripture says ---

Hebrews 4:12 (GW)
12 God’s word is living and active. It is sharper than any two-edged sword and cuts as deep as the place where soul and spirit meet, the place where joints and marrow meet. God’s word judges a person’s thoughts and intentions.


Your Quote ----To me, context means a great deal, so it's important to my understanding of scripture to understand the historical matrix within which it was written.


unsafe says ----Again you have the right to believe what you like -----and your understanding of scripture will only be the Historical matrix as presented by man ---There is a Spiritual context Matrix which is the understanding of what the spiritual scripture is presenting to us which is way more important in where we end up after our life on this earth ----The Human Historical Matrix of Scripture in context is at best speculation in my opinion --


unsafe says and posted below -----Here is some True Spiritual Matrix and I say that cause God says Himself His word is truth ---


Matrix' in the Bible
Matrix in the Bible (5 instances)

Exo 13:12
shall be the LORD'S.">Tools
That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD'S.

KJV
Exo 13:15
Tools
And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.


Exo 34:19
is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.">Tools
All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.

KJV
Num 3:12
Tools
And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine;

KJV
Num 18:15
whether it be of men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem.">Tools
Every thing that openeth the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto the LORD, whether it be of men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem.


Bible meaning of the word Matrix -----
Strong's Definitions
rechem, rekh'-em; from 7355; the womb (compare 7356): — matrix, womb.
 
I'm using the word matrix in the same way that Dom Crossan does (and in reference to the movie, The Matrix): as a fully 3-dimensional "context".
 
Seeler said:
And the next reading is: Matthew 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9: 28 – 62.
Click to expand...

Three of today's readings begin with the familiar story of the Transfiguration. When Jesus took three of his disciples up the mountain and was transfigured before them while speaking with Moses and Elijah. His disciples heard the voice of God reaffirming what it did heard Jesus baptism this is my beloved son. They wanted to built three tabernacles and remain on the mountain Jesus told them they must go down and also told them to tell no one what they seen and heard.


All three gospels continue on story of the disciples failing to heal the epileptic boy. The father confesses the well-known "Lord I believe, help my unbelief." Jesus heals the boy.
 
Next all three gospels were today’s reading contain a short paragraph in which Jesus again predicts his death and the disciples have a hard time accepting it.

Matthew then inserts a question about paying taxes. Jesus agrees that taxes to be paid. He tells the disciples to go to catch a fish, look in its mouth and find a coin for paying the tax.

Matthew’s chapter stops here.


Mark and Luke have the disciples arguing about who is the greatest and Jesus, sitting a small child in their midst, tells them that they must become like little children to enter the kingdom of God. He warns about doing anything that will cause harm to a child or cause a little one to stumble.

The disciples have more questions. They tell Jesus of someone doing good works in the name. Jesus tells them not to worry about it. He says whoever is not against us is for us. (Matthew does not contain this short piece. He has already told us that whoever is not for us as against us, putting a different spin on Jesus words.

Jesus then speaks about the cost of the following Jesus.ie if your eye offends you pluck it out; if your hand offends you cut it off. On this cheerful note of the readings for Mark and Luke come to an end for today.
 
Seeler said:
Jesus then speaks about the cost of the following Jesus.ie if your eye offends you pluck it out; if your hand offends you cut it off. On this cheerful note of the readings for Mark and Luke come to an end for today.
Click to expand...
In that case who in their right mind would follow Jesus? Was it is meant to be taken seriously or was it another parable that Jesus liked to throw out there now and again? Taken at face value I would say the guy was a little bit mad or was into dark humour.
 
I think it is called allegory.
Think of it this way: there is something you enjoy doing, that gives you pleasure and/or usually it's useful, but is causing you problems 0get rid of it. A gambling pr but oblem that for many people is recreation and they can probably control their spending starting to get you in debt - stay away from casinos. Many people enjoy shopping and it's a necessity for some you find yourself becoming a shopaholic or even shoplifting, stay away from the mall, Cut these things in your life.
 
Today's reading is Matthew 18; the only reading for today.

This is where Matthew has his story about the disciples asking who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven and Jesus using little child as his prop when talking about being humble as a little child; don't cause a little one to stumble.

Next we have Matthew's version of the parable of the lost sheep.

Surprisingly verses 15 to 19, the book of Matthew speaks about dealing with sinners in the church. I say surprisingly because these are supposedly Jesus teaching his disciples during his time on earth, yet the church was not established until sometime after the ascension. Could it be that these are Matthew's words rather than Jesus words?

Matthew then continues on with another parable – this one about the unmerciful servant who was forgiven his debts but they refused to forgive another his debts.
 
Seeler -----your quote -----Surprisingly verses 15 to 19, the book of Matthew speaks about dealing with sinners in the church. I say surprisingly because these are supposedly Jesus teaching his disciples during his time on earth, yet the church was not established until sometime after the ascension. Could it be that these are Matthew's words rather than Jesus words?


unsafe says ----Seeler you say you have and rely on the Holy Spirit for direction -----so what is the Holy Spirit saying to you about the Spiritual meaning of this passage when it comes to the meaning of the church-----you seem to be looking at this passage with a human lens not a spiritual lens ------and the word church does not appear in the scripture itself it is put as the Heading in some Bibles versions and others use a different word than church in their heading of this passage -----

unsafe says ----As far as this your quote here goes ---- Could it be that these are Matthew's words rather than Jesus words?

I believe Matthew is speaking relaying instruction that Jesus gave for dealing with a sinning brother ----so they are Jesus instructions which were given to Him by His Father ----Jesus said nothing on His own according to scripture --he spoke what His Father told Him to speak ------
 
This is my view on why the Jews were perplexed about what Jesus said in John 6 about eating His Flesh

And as far as the early Church thinking that the Eucharist was cannibalism ---to me again that is reading and understanding the meaning with our human understanding and being ignorant of the Spiritual understanding -----

The Jews using human understanding not Spiritual understanding of what Jesus was meaning in this passage ------Why--- because they didn't believe that Jesus was God in the flesh ----Many Jews still today are waiting for their Messiah to appear -----


Dictionary

can·ni·bal·ism
ˈkanibəlizəm/
noun
  1. the practice of eating the flesh of one's own species.

unsafe says ----No one ever ate the human Flesh of Jesus before or after He died -----Jesus is the Bread of Life ------we eat the Spiritual Bread of life not the human flesh which is for this world only -----How you see this is through what lens your seeing it through -----

This scripture tells you the meaning of the word flesh ---it refers to the bread which gives eternal life ----The bread is His body which He gave

John 6:51 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

verse 52 -----Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

unsafe says
There are 2 ways to view scripture ----The Holy Spirit is the only one who can stop the blinding glare of the human view of scripture to reveal the spiritual meaning in the scripture ---The Jews allowed the their physical blinding glare of scripture to obscure the spiritual because of their unbelief in who Jesus was -----therefore to them the eating of the flesh meant Cannibalism


1432303788613
 
unsafe, I don't know where this John 6 reference came from in the following of seeler's readings, but the problem that the Jewish people have with Christianity has nothing to with a cannibalistic take on the eucharist. Jewish people get metaphor, too. The Jewish problem with Christianity, similar to the Muslim problem with Christianity, is trinity theology, specifically the divinity of Jesus. They cannot combine the Three-In-One idea with their vision for a monotheistic "One God".
 
There are hundred of testimonies of Jews who find Jesus on YouTube. Mostly they have been told not to ever open or read the New Testiment. It was written by Catholics. They think it is by Jew haters.

Then when they read it, they realize it is written by Jews, for Jews about Jews.
 
BetteTheRed ------ unsafe, I don't know where this John 6 reference came from in the following of seeler's readings, but the problem that the Jewish people have with Christianity has nothing to with a cannibalistic take on the eucharist.

unsafe says ---Believe as you will ------and posted Seelers Quote ----You can find it in her summary on page 31 post #614 ---

Her quote here ------ Not mentioned here that I understand that one of the accusations made against the early Christians was that they practice cannibalism. Would it be connected with with Jesus on words?


unsafe says -----Here is a couple of commentary on John 6:52 ----

John 6:52 (KJV) - Forerunner Commentary


John 6:52

Verse 52 shows that the Jews again interpret His words in a strictly literal sense: "How can this Man gives us His flesh to eat?" How utterly impossible it is for those who do not believe, who do not "come to Him," to understand the mysteries of salvation! Their hearts are ever ready to quarrel, scoff, and resist.

Jesus does not back down in the face of their scoffing. Instead, He strengthens His statement about eating His flesh by adding that one must also drink His blood! He moves from something that seems foolish to His audience to the outright absurd.
John W. Ritenbaugh


unsafe says ---I am just posting the part of this commentary that is explaining how some Jews took what Jesus said -----you can read all at link provided -----
John 6:52 (KJV) - Robertson's Word Pictures (NT)

Robertson's Word Pictures (NT)
<< John 6:51

John 6:52
They were already murmuring (John 6:41), now they began bitter strife with one another over the last words of Jesus (John 6:43-51), some probably seeing a spiritual meaning in them.

His flesh to eat (thn sarka autou fagein). As if we were cannibals! Some MSS. do not have autou, but the meaning is clear. The mystical appropriation of Christ by the believer (Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 3:17) they could not comprehend, though some apparently were against this literal interpretation of "flesh" (sarc).










 
Reflections on the Gospel of John – today’s reading this chapter 7 and8.

The Gospel of John was my favourite gospel when I was at university. I love the sophisticated language, the philosophical ideas, the high Christology, and the verses I memorized while the child in Sunday school. It gave me a lot to think about. Now is a senior citizen I seldom turn to John. I much prefer Luke with its beautiful parables and also writing style; and Mark’s short concise stories. It is difficult to believe Mark, with Mark’s brief jottings, poor grammar, and low Christology, and John were both written about the same person. In John Jesus is definitely presented as “the Christ” with foreknowledge of what people were thinking or what they would do and of what was to come. Mark presents a much more human Jesus who ate and drank, got tired, was sometimes frustrated and discouraged, and who changed his mind. I like Mark’s Jesus.

It is my understanding that John was the last Gospel to be written, probably about the turn-of-the-century. I don’t believe it was written by the apostle John, an illiterate or semiliterate fisherman. (It is true that the Scripture mentions his father having more okay good hired hands – I think that these were probably a fellow fishermen who had lost their boat due to an inability to pay the high taxes imposed by the Romans. They were probably paid with the share of the catch).

I believe that this gospel was probably compiled by the early church and written by a scribe within that church. It would have contained both written and oral stories from an earlier time, chosen by the church people to suit the stated purpose “is so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah the son of God and that through believing you may have life in his name”. It was probably revised each time it was copied over the next two centuries.
 
Believe nothing in reality ... real folk will lie to succeed physically and leave all us essence-like folk to the fringe ... over the horizon like Oz and ouzia ... Ouzo? Powerful spirits considering those that love strong spirits and not poor mans byre ... lesser spirits ... humbling? It is said god is humble ...

Can one get lessor than that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top