The Great Commission

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
Waterfall said:
Yet we see in the old testament that the holy spirit comes by flame or fire and only to a select few. Was it changed in the new testament?
Click to expand...
Also at pentecost in Acts 2:3 the holy spirit is seen as a tongue on fire on each person.
 
jimkenney12 said:
Were the disciples baptized? It seems there was a significant gao between any baptism they might have had and the reception of the Spirit. Why would God only provide the experience of the Spirit to people through baptism?

As much as I like the Great Commission, this discussion provides more weight in my view to the possibility the author of Matthew added this story to legitimize the practice of baptism.
Click to expand...
The disciples were presumably baptized since they themselves already baptized others during Jesus' public ministry (John 4:1-2).
 
Things with tongues on fire seem to be something other than angels alighting! Maybe dragoons or other templar soldiers raping and pillaging ... the human side? Soldiers of fortune that will give nothing up only expecting more as they never have enough ... thus the skinning of poor people of their hides as done in church rip offs and other inquisitions ... total satyr on earth'stage? Might we be looked down upon for excessive aggression ... Shakespeare found mire mortals somewhat ironic and corn-like! Odd beasts ...
 
Mystic said:
The disciples were presumably baptized since they themselves already baptized others during Jesus' public ministry (John 4:1-2).
Click to expand...
But that is just a presumption. And this is relying on John which you regard as most authoritative of the gospels and I regard as least authoritative.
 
This BPoTW from Matthew reminds me of John's Gospel quite a bit. It actually seems more similar to John (with its theological statements) than the earlier chapters of Matthew.
 
Here's one: Does this not support the Baptist (and some related streams of Christianity) belief that baptism must be received as an adult rather than infant baptism? After all, an infant is not really in a position to experience or accept "The Spirit". Even in my UCCan days I was kind of leaning towards adult baptism but I wonder how the Great Commission plays into that belief.
 
jimkenney12 said:
But that is just a presumption. And this is relying on John which you regard as most authoritative of the gospels and I regard as least authoritative.
Click to expand...
Cambridge University scholar, C. H. Dodd, wrote a magisterial book, "History and Tradition in the Fourth Gospel" in which he demonstrates that John is even more accurate in its historical details than the Synoptic Gospels. Progressives can't get away with begging the question by arguing that any teaching of Jesus that doesn't serve our woke agenda must be inauthentic. To that end, tonight I will post a new thread that demonstrates 4 ways that the Great Commission refutes the standard woke talking points. I'm starting a new thread because I don't want to dominate this one.
 
Mystic said:
Cambridge University scholar, C. H. Dodd, wrote a magisterial book, "History and Tradition in the Fourth Gospel" in which he demonstrates that John is even more accurate in its historical details than the Synoptic Gospels.
Click to expand...
That's arguing from authority, though. What are the actual arguments? Because Bible Studies is ultimately a branch of the humanities and has no absolute test of "truth" as in the physical sciences where a replicable experimental result or observation sets a standard for establishing truth. The best a humanities field can manage is "widely accepted" as the basis for "probably true". One man's book, no matter how magisterial, does not automatically make something true. I'm sure that someone with the time and effort could find scholarly refutations of Dodd's arguments. And, to be clear, I am saying this as someone with a background in the humanities myself so I'm not dissing the field, just suggesting that "xx says yy so yy is true" is just as problematic in humanities as in sciences, if for different reasons.
 
Was Cambridge a base of colonization ... and from there it flew as truth from a self defining book of the aforesaid that didn't know initially? T Merton wrote on that phenomenon ... he had to retreat to experience it ...
 
Mendalla said:
That's arguing from authority, though. What are the actual arguments? Because Bible Studies is ultimately a branch of the humanities and has no absolute test of "truth" as in the physical sciences where a replicable experimental result or observation sets a standard for establishing truth. The best a humanities field can manage is "widely accepted" as the basis for "probably true". One man's book, no matter how magisterial, does not automatically make something true. I'm sure that someone with the time and effort could find scholarly refutations of Dodd's arguments. And, to be clear, I am saying this as someone with a background in the humanities myself so I'm not dissing the field, just suggesting that "xx says yy so yy is true" is just as problematic in humanities as in sciences, if for different reasons.
Click to expand...

Yes.

There are people who think economics is a "science". Ouch.
 
My comments in this thread, by the way, are something of an examination of my ability to properly engage in a thread while ignoring a poster, so if my comments seem a bit disjointed, that is why. Things interest me. Some people, unfortunately, profoundly dis-interest me.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Yes.

There are people who think economics is a "science". Ouch.
Click to expand...
I'd say it is more scientific than Biblical scholarship but much less so than chemistry. At least you can do statistical analysis to look at how past conditions have developed and then make predictions to see if the pattern holds true in future. Biblical scholarship is mostly looking at texts and saying what you think they mean based on the original languages, cultures, etc. as well as one's own theological leaning. Nothing really testable and the closest thing to a standard of truth is consensus. And that's not a bad thing necessarily (literary criticism has the same problem, for instance), just a feature of the discipline that means you cannot claim "truth" without some kind of qualifier since there's no way to objectively "test" your hypothesis beyond seeing if it holds up when new texts or archaeological evidence come to light.
 
Well, fair enough, except that Economics, as a science, has what I consider to be a "fatal flaw". And that is that human purchasing decisions are rational.

I majored in Economics to about a third year level, and could do some sophisticated mathematical modelling of systems, and produce answers. But as we all know, humanity often, or always, confounds these predictions.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Well, fair enough, except that Economics, as a science, has what I consider to be a "fatal flaw". And that is that human purchasing decisions are rational.

I majored in Economics to about a third year level, and could do some sophisticated mathematical modelling of systems, and produce answers. But as we all know, humanity often, or always, confounds these predictions.
Click to expand...
Yep, which is why it scores well below the natural sciences. The human factor makes it much harder for predictions made using a hypothesis developed from past evidence to be tested.
 
Then alchemy is said to be so och noble ... a Celtic unspeakable term, or denied sentient state ... difficult! Some processing relation may be prerequisite and prior said to be undesirable to those rejecting ide ...

One has to open up to be properly rejected from where we're at in the game of hate ...

I can't believe what I've heard some past acquaintances say to be their sentient truth ... something is seized there ... unenlightened as Eire Christianity blown!

Distasteful in places ... bag that ...
 
My big issues is that completely irrational concepts proven false repeatedly can still be the accepted truth in economics. Neoliberalism makes little sense.

Trickle down economics just helps the rich get richer without doing much for others. Lower business taxes increase the power of established businesses making it harder for new businesses to get established. Entrepreneurs look at opportunities and risks which depend on infrastructure, potential markets, suppliers, and potential customers.
 
jimkenney12 said:
My big issues is that completely irrational concepts proven false repeatedly can still be the accepted truth in economics. Neoliberalism makes little sense.

Trickle down economics just helps the rich get richer without doing much for others. Lower business taxes increase the power of established businesses making it harder for new businesses to get established. Entrepreneurs look at opportunities and risks which depend on infrastructure, potential markets, suppliers, and potential customers.
Click to expand...

Thus critical disseminating separation ... emanation? It bubbles up ... essence goes ... often in 5 vectors like quintessence! This can be graphed ... as pyramid scheme in the domain that say they have noting to do with such conspiracies ... as it lies! Then we find they do ... as done prior!

Lyres form these chords regardless ... and put their heads back in non regard ... they cannot visualize their own corruption ... the great mystery needed a place to put this concept ... thus the dirt ... Western mire?

Imagine getting a grasp of theis gritty situation ... dirty gods as gnomons ... Gno stix? Slick ... then the opposing viper ... Caduceus! The single will not do as Asclepios ... no balance ... TU Fili ... horses on the sea ... Kelpies ...
 
Last edited:
Mendalla asked about the relevance of Jesus' command to proselytize to modern coercive measures. Jesus requires His missionaries to abruptly leave without attempted coercion when the community is not receptive and to shake the dust off their feet to symbolize their future indifference to that community and its needs. Only if they are welcoming are the missionaries to exercize "power over" their diseases:

"Whenever you enter a town and the people welcome you,.. cure the sick who are there and say to them, "The kingdom of God has come near to you." BUT Whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, "Even the dust of your streets that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this; the kingdom of God has come near."I tell you, on that Day, it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town (Luke 10:8-12)."
Note His word of judgment here. There is no thought of "Every spiritual path is equally valid."
 
You cannot change the attitude of folks that are dedicated to power of will alone ... they gave up on gentile sentient! Once gone hard to recover ... so be careful with what you eliminate!

Intellect is such a soft aspect of all that is ... except when you ride Eire ... and get beyond ... wherever you're at ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top