Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[Jayhawker Soule]

ok i see what you mean...

matthew 23:15 and other passages like that one support this...
but it wasn't what i meant

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2-i-think-discrepancy-rather-interesting.html

mark 14:61“Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

luke 22:67 “If you are the Messiah,” they said, “tell us.” Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”

it could be argued that those who spoke to jesus in marks account, 20 or 30 yrs earlier than luke's account died and never saw the mighty one coming on the clouds of heaven...and thats why luke's account is different...

Yes, Luke is addressing a broad audiance that never acquired - or had finally and painfully lost - faith in an immanent parousia.

 

[sojourner]

simple, because they didn't believe him

Nope. Because he challenged the status quo.

then why was the story of the good samaritan not called the good roman? (ethne) or were the romans the wrong (ethne)?

Very good guess! you see, the Romans were the ones in power. The priest and the Levite represented purity. The Samaritan represented neither. The Samaritan was social pond scum. They represented the parabolic POV -- hence, the parable -- of the kingdom lying in the outcast.

 

[sojourner]

you mean the great commission in 28?
if so,
to conquer the world and fill it with the right ethne...

i'm not so sure what you are referring to in 26

but in chapter 26 we have that sanhedrin dilemma to deal with, so pretty much anything goes with matthew...i suppose one would have to take the gospel of matthew with a truck load of salt... but in most cases...taking it with a grain salt would be pushing it

Sorry, it was dark when i was typing and I hit the wrong key. I meant 28.

 

[sojourner]

It is, in fact, so much of a dilemma that it most closely resembles a preposterous (and anti-Judaic) fabrication.

Yes, it kind of is! Matthew was really pushing for the true Israel being embodied in the followers of Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

you see, the Romans were the ones in power. The priest and the Levite represented purity. The Samaritan represented neither. The Samaritan was social pond scum. They represented the parabolic POV --

Inkblot theology. Worthless.

 

[waitasec]

Nope. Because he challenged the status quo.

Very good guess! you see, the Romans were the ones in power. The priest and the Levite represented purity. The Samaritan represented neither. The Samaritan was social pond scum. They represented the parabolic POV -- hence, the parable -- of the kingdom lying in the outcast.

so where do you suppose the idea of jesus was meant to include everyone came from?
my guess it was a new idea because of the fact the parousia never occurred

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

my guess it was a new idea because of the fact the parousia never occurred

My guess is that it was the result of Hellenization and a focus on the diaspora.

 

[waitasec]

My guess is that it was the result of Hellenization and a focus on the diaspora.

yes i agree with that too..go and make disciples of all nations, and then MAYBE he will return once that happens...

 

[Shermana]

Not according to Matthew. According to Matthew, it's a whole new party.

I would say Matthew says the exact opposite and fully is saying that the party is the same original Israelite party, perhaps you can provide some examples of quotes that show Matthew saying its a new party. Are you referring to the great commission? All it says is to make "Disciples" of all nations. The key word is to "Make Disciples", which means "Make them believe like we do". And that would be a Torah obedient sect that simply doesn't follow it like the Pharisees. There's nothing to interpret it as being anything but bringing people to be members of this Jewish separatist sect. Matthew is called the most Jewish gospel for a reason, you have to deliberately look at it as something other than what it is most known as in order to get your conclusion,.

 

[waitasec]

I would say Matthew says the exact opposite and fully is saying that the party is the same original Israelite party, perhaps you can provide some examples of quotes that show Matthew saying its a new party. Are you referring to the great commission? All it says is to make "Disciples" of all nations. The key word is to "Make Disciples", which means "Make them believe like we do". And that would be a Torah obedient sect that simply doesn't follow it like the Pharisees. There's nothing to interpret it as being anything but bringing people to be members of this Jewish separatist sect. Matthew is called the most Jewish gospel for a reason, you have to deliberately look at it as something other than what it is most known as in order to get your conclusion,.

opcorn:


ps
i agree with you...just incase you didn't already know

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

yes i agree with that too..go and make disciples of all nations, and then MAYBE he will return once that happens...

No, I think nascent Christianity was a shift away from a corporate theology and messianic hope and toward the struggle for personal grace with just reward deferred to the afterlife.

 

[waitasec]

No, I thing nascent Christianity was a shift away from a corporate theology and messianic hope and toward the struggle for personal grace with just reward deferred to the afterlife.

christians would argue that this understanding didn't just appear but rather was part of the plan

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

christians would argue that ...

OK, and I would suggest otherwise.

 

[waitasec]

OK, and I would suggest otherwise.

i am well aware of that....
and i, like you perhaps, am curious as to how this edited version of judaism is supposed to include all nations when jesus had to be jewish

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

i am well aware of that....
and i, like you perhaps, am curious as to how this edited version of judaism is supposed to include all nations when jesus had to be jewish

I do not view Christianity as an edited version of Judaism.

 

[waitasec]

I do not view Christianity as an edited version of Judaism.

and i understand why you wouldn't....as much as i can...not being jewish
so perhaps instead of an edited version of judaism...a new religion would suffice?

 

[1robin]

ok, so who isn't?

Are you just going to add another pointless question in response to every answer? Now I am doing it.

how am i supposed to interpret that?
the possibilities are endless for everyone.

Perfection is an unreachable and unknowable goal but still should by strove for. I have no idea what you are talking about now.

why limit your understanding?
characteristics are how we relate to one another...
even though this person called jesus wasn't god...the ethics he stood for represent humanity as a whole...or at least where we want humanity to be.
him claiming to be god is another issue all together

It is a law of philosophy that a statement inconsistent with it's self can't possibly be true. Either you are following what you do not believe exists or you are following something non contradictory that isn't God and deserves no following. Either way is a schizophrenic position. Either you are born again and are good to go, you have an superficial intelectuall agreement with an idea and are no better off than an atheist, or you have created a fiction Christ that has no value. The bible is clear on this issue. By you I mean in general not you in particular.

in all seriousness,
that is an impossible task for you to commit to.
and to actually think you are in the position to evaluate "motivation" without knowing one iota about me is ridiculous...
and speaks volumes as to the hubris that is required for one to be committed to such a task in the first place

Something this obvious requires no Hubris. You can't start squirming before I even post it. It really isn't that profound but it finally gave me the governing dynamic that generates every post you have made to me. It is technically my opinion but so is IMO the world is round.

oh so non christians aren't human?

Keep this in mind when I give you my explenation. I said mostly and as it was in perenthesis it was obviously a joke. Regardless I did not imply or insinuate who is not in the mostly category but you decided for me (according to preference only) who was in the statement that followed one in which you redicule the same actions on my part which haven't even been posted yet. Halaluya and pass the tylenol.

 

[waitasec]

Are you just going to add another pointless question in response to every answer? Now I am doing it.



Perfection is an unreachable and unknowable goal but still should by strove for. I have no idea what you are talking about now.

faith in god does nothing to separate one person from another
jesus' sword cannot separate our humanity...
as there is nothing a believer can do that a non believer can't
like it or not, we are all in the same boat....it's called planet earth.

It is a law of philosophy that a statement inconsistent with it's self can't possibly be true. Either you are following what you do not believe exists or you are following something non contradictory that isn't God and deserves no following.

i believe ethics exist.

Either way is a schizophrenic position. Either you are born again and are good to go, you have an superficial intelectuall agreement with an idea and are no better off than an atheist, or you have created a fiction Christ that has no value. The bible is clear on this issue. By you I mean in general not you in particular.

careful, your inclination towards hubris is showing

Something this obvious requires no Hubris. You can't start squirming before I even post it. It really isn't that profound but it finally gave me the governing dynamic that generates every post you have made to me. It is technically my opinion but so is IMO the world is round.

by all means i cannot wait to see...

Keep this in mind when I give you my explenation. I said mostly and as it was in perenthesis it was obviously a joke.

a joke which incites...or am i wrong?

Regardless I did not imply or insinuate who is not in the mostly category but you decided for me (according to preference only) who was in the statement that followed one in which you redicule the same actions on my part which haven't even been posted yet. Halaluya and pass the tylenol.

for anyone to say (mostly) requires knowledge of everyone...
you cannot possible know everyone.

 

[sojourner]

Inkblot theology. Worthless.

Several imminent theologians disagree with you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Several imminent theologians disagree with you.

How would you know?