• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"THE LORD'S DAY IS THE SABBATH DAY NOT SUNDAY ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURES

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
Kind of happens a lot in this forum. People will micro quote another persons post pulled from context and try and build arguments that others are not even talking about. To me that is a little dishonest. Its just another way of ignoring the post content and scriptures provided that might not agree with those responding. We are better off fully quoting another persons post and responding to it section by section in my view. Happy 2024!
I appreciate that we all have our biases, that is human nature and probably its fair to say, unavoidable. However, the bad part about it is when individuals intentionally use said biases to earbash others whilst ignoring what are obvious truths (such as the contents of my post that Indigo was responding to). IF one is intentionally going to take what is a plain reading of English and turn it into a complete lie...thats not a great look. It has made me realise however, that it we only read posts to the point where we find something we disagree with, then cut the rest off, we might miss the real point of the post (which can be the complete opposite of what we think due to our own biases). In that way, we shouldn't be too harsh on Indigo...just that once I explained myself, Indigo should have recognised the unintentional mistake they made and move on without any harm done. Instead, they chose to be a redneck. I can take it on the chin...its ok, ive done it myself many times and i certainly dont feel like this was a tv gameshow winner result...it ended up with someone slamming the door and that is never a great outcome and Im a bit sad it ended that way to be honest...i should have dealt with it in a more humble way (i am a stubborn *** like that).

Anyway, happy new year and all the best for 2024 to you as well 3rd Angel and others reading here.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
So contrary to what you have been taught, Christ wasnt making up two new commandments in Matthew 22:37...he quoted from the already-known and practised Shema in Deuteronomy 6.5, the Jewish confession of faith!
What Jesus appears to have been doing was to synthesize the 613 Commandments into two general categories: Love of God and Love of Neighbor. IOW, the KISS approach.

Thus, what he's seemingly saying is that if his followers follow the law of love that he teaches, then they'll be following what God wants.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If you are incapable of reading and comprehension, what more can i do. I have fully explained what i said.

Go back and quote my full post instead of dog barking up trees!

And whilst you are doing that...note what you also claimed below...

"Remember that Judaism is a religion of right action, not right belief"

A question...

How does a jew know what the right action is WITHOUT the right belief?

You see the problem with your argument there right?
You clearly don't know what you're talking about in reference to Judaism.
 

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
What Jesus appears to have been doing was to synthesize the 613 Commandments into two general categories: Love of God and Love of Neighbor. IOW, the KISS approach.

Thus, what he's seemingly saying is that if his followers follow the law of love that he teaches, then they'll be following what God wants
What he is seemingly saying???

How can you make that statement...have you actually looked at the Shema? Do you think I am making that up?


Whether or not you agree, its a historically proven reference citing the Shema...an incantation that is thousands of years old and which all Jews claim to have on their lips at the point of death, and you say...it "seems" Christ (a jew by birth and upbringing) was teaching something different?

God is Love and the Ten Commandments are God's law of Love. You do understand that right? (you probably should google it)
You clearly don't know what you're talking about in reference to Judaism

Now let me bring you in on a little secret. Do you know how I know Christ was referencing the Shema?

1. My dad holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in biblical theology and he has studied and worked professionally in this area for 40 years. As soon as I showed him this, he immediately recognized the error in the post i was responding to and added Deuteronomy into the mix of texts i quoted.

2. I used my bible concordance to cross reference Christ's statement and found the other texts I cited. I didn't make the interpretation...if you don't believe me, check you own bible cross-referencing. 100% it will take you to the texts I cited.

3. I diid not make the claim Christ is not referring to Gods law of Love...SDAs believe quite the opposite actually. If you were to use some intellectual ability and check for yourself, you will find that even Google searches produce the same results and conclusions as what i posted regarding the Law of Love.

The problem here is that you simply do not get the point of why one should never straw-pluck texts out of their context and attempt to derive doctrine from them. You were a simple person who read one line of a text, ignored everything else in Christ's ministry surrounding the topic (ie loving your neighbor) and voila... there's the "new" commandment that supersedes everything else!

Now i will give you a short theological history lesson...

1. The Sanhedrin was known in the time of Christ to have increasingly followed in the pathway of their forefathers and made the Law of Love (The 10 commandments) a burden.

2. Christ rejected the notion of repression through the use of the law and taught it as it was supposed to be implemented.

3. There is no evidence, despite your continuing to attempt to link them, that the 613 bylaws and the 10 commandments are the same thing. How do we know that there is a difference one may ask? Well the answer to that is simple...which laws were written in stone, 613 or just 10? Why were the 10 commandments written in stone and not just on papyri or something of that nature? We know the Egyptians had other writing medium at this time in history and that the Israelites pillaged all they owned from the Egyptians immediately before the Exodus!

4. We know that the writer of the gospel of John also wrote the book of Revelation and that Revelation was almost certainly written after Johns Gospel. Given that, if your claim Christ was doing away with the 10 commandments is true, how is it that John writes in Revelation 14:12

"Here is a call for the patience of the saints who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus"
Cross-reference the above passage and note what we find...

1 John 2:3 By this we can be sure that we have come to know Him: if we keep His commandments.
Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was enraged at the woman, and went to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea.

Now if we go back a little, let's remind ourselves of an important biblical theme...

Why did Christ die on the Cross?
1. Was it not in fulfillment of the need to atone for the sins of mankind after Adam and Eve disobeyed in the Garden of Eden and thus brought pain and suffering into this world? "He will save His people from their sins" Matthew 1:21
2. Was it not due to the righteousness of Christ "let us then approach God's throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need" Hebrews 4:16
3. Was it not to provide an avenue of salvation "who he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Saviour" Titus 3:6
4. Was it not to redeem us back unto God? "He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit" Galatians 3:14
5. Did not the two angels at the time of the ascension of Christ into heaven make the following claim "men of gallilee, why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven" Acts 1:11

Is not the culmination of all of the above found in Revelation 21? "and i saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea".

I guess the point is this...

whether or not you care to accept it, we have only 1 standard by which we know what sin is...the 10 commandments. It is the only standard by which judgment occurs in all the bible (there is no other standard mentioned).

The pharasees and Saduccees corrupted this law and turned it into a means of self elevation and segregation. They used it to oppress the poor, to presecute, and to punish unjustly.

Christ did not say to ignore the 10 commandments (as shown in Luke 11:42 below) rather, Christ simplified the laws into a commandment of love (God and one another) because the jewish leadership were not showing any compassion or love in the way they followed the law. Sure they kept the law, Christ admitted that, but they did not love in keeping the law. God is love and His law is love...it was not meant to be implemented in this way and Christ highlighted that mistake.

Check out Luke 11, and Matthew 23 below (Matt 23 is a bible concordance cross reference for Luke btw)

Luke 11:

42Woe to you Pharisees! You pay tithes of mint, rue, and every herb, but you disregard justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former.
46“Woe to you as well, experts in the law!” He replied. “You weigh men down with heavy burdens, but you yourselves will not lift a finger to lighten their load.​
50As a result, this generation will be charged with the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the foundation of the world,​
52Woe to you experts in the law! For you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”​


Matthew 23

1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: 2“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy, burdensome loadsa and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.​
5All their deeds are done for men to see. They broaden their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. 6They love the places of honor at banquets, the chief seats in the synagogues, 7the greetings in the marketplaces, and the title of ‘Rabbi’ by which they are addressed.b
8But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ. 11The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.​
 
Last edited:

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
What he is seemingly saying???

How can you make that statement...have you actually looked at the Shema? Do you think I am making that up?


Whether or not you agree, its a historically proven reference citing the Shema...an incantation that is thousands of years old and which all Jews claim to have on their lips at the point of death, and you say...it "seems" Christ (a jew by birth and upbringing) was teaching something different?

God is Love and the Ten Commandments are God's law of Love. You do understand that right? (you probably should google it)


Now let me bring you in on a little secret. Do you know how I know Christ was referencing the Shema?

1. My dad holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in biblical theology and he has studied and worked professionally in this area for 40 years. As soon as I showed him this, he immediately recognized the error in the post i was responding to and added Deuteronomy into the mix of texts i quoted.

2. I used my bible concordance to cross reference Christ's statement and found the other texts I cited. I didn't make the interpretation...if you don't believe me, check you own bible cross-referencing. 100% it will take you to the texts I cited.

3. I diid not make the claim Christ is not referring to Gods law of Love...SDAs believe quite the opposite actually. If you were to use some intellectual ability and check for yourself, you will find that even Google searches produce the same results and conclusions as what i posted regarding the Law of Love.

The problem here is that you simply do not get the point of why one should never straw-pluck texts out of their context and attempt to derive doctrine from them. You were a simple person who read one line of a text, ignored everything else in Christ's ministry surrounding the topic (ie loving your neighbor) and voila... there's the "new" commandment that supersedes everything else!

Now i will give you a short theological history lesson...

1. The Sanhedrin was known in the time of Christ to have increasingly followed in the pathway of their forefathers and made the Law of Love (The 10 commandments) a burden.

2. Christ rejected the notion of repression through the use of the law and taught it as it was supposed to be implemented.

3. There is no evidence, despite your continuing to attempt to link them, that the 613 bylaws and the 10 commandments are the same thing. How do we know that there is a difference one may ask? Well the answer to that is simple...which laws were written in stone, 613 or just 10? Why were the 10 commandments written in stone and not just on papyri or something of that nature? We know the Egyptians had other writing medium at this time in history and that the Israelites pillaged all they owned from the Egyptians immediately before the Exodus!

4. We know that the writer of the gospel of John also wrote the book of Revelation and that Revelation was almost certainly written after Johns Gospel. Given that, if your claim Christ was doing away with the 10 commandments is true, how is it that John writes in Revelation 14:12

"Here is a call for the patience of the saints who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus"
Cross-reference the above passage and note what we find...

1 John 2:3 By this we can be sure that we have come to know Him: if we keep His commandments.
Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was enraged at the woman, and went to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea.

Now if we go back a little, let's remind ourselves of an important biblical theme...

Why did Christ die on the Cross?
1. Was it not in fulfillment of the need to atone for the sins of mankind after Adam and Eve disobeyed in the Garden of Eden and thus brought pain and suffering into this world? "He will save His people from their sins" Matthew 1:21
2. Was it not due to the righteousness of Christ "let us then approach God's throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need" Hebrews 4:16
3. Was it not to provide an avenue of salvation "who he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Saviour" Titus 3:6
4. Was it not to redeem us back unto God? "He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit" Galatians 3:14
5. Did not the two angels at the time of the ascension of Christ into heaven make the following claim "men of gallilee, why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven" Acts 1:11

Is not the culmination of all of the above found in Revelation 21? "and i saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea".

I guess the point is this...

whether or not you care to accept it, we have only 1 standard by which we know what sin is...the 10 commandments. It is the only standard by which judgment occurs in all the bible (there is no other standard mentioned).

The pharasees and Saduccees corrupted this law and turned it into a means of self elevation and segregation. They used it to oppress the poor, to presecute, and to punish unjustly.

Christ did not say to ignore the 10 commandments (as shown in Luke 11:42 below) rather, Christ simplified the laws into a commandment of love (God and one another) because the jewish leadership were not showing any compassion or love in the way they followed the law. Sure they kept the law, Christ admitted that, but they did not love in keeping the law. God is love and His law is love...it was not meant to be implemented in this way and Christ highlighted that mistake.

Check out Luke 11, and Matthew 23 below (Matt 23 is a bible concordance cross reference for Luke btw)

Luke 11:

42Woe to you Pharisees! You pay tithes of mint, rue, and every herb, but you disregard justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former.
46“Woe to you as well, experts in the law!” He replied. “You weigh men down with heavy burdens, but you yourselves will not lift a finger to lighten their load.​
50As a result, this generation will be charged with the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the foundation of the world,​
52Woe to you experts in the law! For you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”​


Matthew 23

1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: 2“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy, burdensome loadsa and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.​
5All their deeds are done for men to see. They broaden their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. 6They love the places of honor at banquets, the chief seats in the synagogues, 7the greetings in the marketplaces, and the title of ‘Rabbi’ by which they are addressed.b
8But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ. 11The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.​
Thanks well thought out scripture response....
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
There are 613 of them with the Decalogue being the first 10: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)
According to the scriptures there is only 10 commandments in Gods 10 commandments not 9 or 613 (see Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13 and Deuteronomy 10:4).
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
How can you make that statement...have you actually looked at the Shema? Do you think I am making that up?

God is Love and the Ten Commandments are God's law of Love. You do understand that right? (you probably should google it)

I taught both theologically, but I don't want to make this about me as you have done. If you continue to use demeaning attacks towards me or anyone else, this is what the ignore list is about. Christ taught love, not sarcasm and demeaning others. Nor are anti-Semitic posts moral imo.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
How can you make that statement...have you actually looked at the Shema? Do you think I am making that up?
I have.
Whether or not you agree, its a historically proven reference citing the Shema...
What is "historically proven" is that the author of Mark makes a claim in Chapter 12. Given that ...

Most critical scholars reject the early church tradition linking the gospel to John Mark, who was a companion of Saint Peter, and it is now generally agreed that it was written anonymously for a gentile audience, probably in Rome, sometime shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD.[6][7] [source]​

See, also, Udo Schnell's The History and Theology of New Testament Writings.

Characterizing something as "historically proven" because it's found in one or more of the Synoptics strikes me as a little silly.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
After giving the 10, Moses continues on to cite additional Commandants, which is why they're collectively called the "Laws of Moses". Here they are and where they're found in Torah: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)
We are talking about Gods 10 commandments though, spoken and written by God alone on two tables of stone (Exodus 20:1-17; Exodus 32:16) and repeated in both the old and new covenant scriptures. We are not talking about the ceremonial laws for animal sacrifices and sin offerings and or the ceremonial shadow laws of the earthly Sanctuary and Levitical Priesthood and annual feast days and circumcision that are all now fulfilled in Christ to who they pointed to (see Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10-1-22. We are in the new covenant now not the old (see Jeremiah 31:31-36; Ezekiel 36:24-27 and Hebrews 8:10-12). According to the scriptures there is only 10 commandments in Gods 10 commandments not 9 or 613 (see Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13 and Deuteronomy 10:4)
 
Last edited:

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
I taught both theologically, but I don't want to make this about me as you have done. If you continue to use demeaning attacks towards me or anyone else, this is what the ignore list is about. Christ taught love, not sarcasm and demeaning others. Nor are anti-Semitic posts moral imo.
Now thats an idea...lets go and put someone in the naughty corner.

The problem is, these forum posts are for the benefit of others who read the nonesense...so if you place someone on the ignore list, you don't know the extent of the arguments used to discredit your unsound theology...but the others all see it. As you then don't respond, they get the impression you realise your goose is cooked.

You see how this works?

If you dont want someone essentially calling you out in a manner you are not happy about, perhaps you should improve the quality of your answers with sound intelligent thinking.

Oh btw...you appear to state you are/were a teacher of a sorts...you and me both. I studied, and completed bachelor of education degree 24 years ago, and taught high school.
 
Last edited:

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
I have.

What is "historically proven" is that the author of Mark makes a claim in Chapter 12. Given that ...

Most critical scholars reject the early church tradition linking the gospel to John Mark, who was a companion of Saint Peter, and it is now generally agreed that it was written anonymously for a gentile audience, probably in Rome, sometime shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD.[6][7] [source]​

See, also, Udo Schnell's The History and Theology of New Testament Writings.

Characterizing something as "historically proven" because it's found in one or more of the Synoptics strikes me as a little silly.
Really...thats interesting because look at what encyclopedia Brittanica says...(I also have the reference you used to make that claim btw)


"Gospel According to Mark, second of the four New Testament Gospels (narratives recounting the life and death of Jesus Christ) and, with Matthew and Luke, one of the three Synoptic Gospels (i.e., those presenting a common view). It is attributed to St. Mark the Evangelist (Acts 12:12; 15:37), an associate of St. Paul and a disciple of St. Peter, whose teachings the Gospel may reflect. It is the shortest and the earliest of the four Gospels, presumably written during the decade preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Most scholars agree that it was used by St. Matthew and St. Luke in composing their accounts; more than 90 percent of the content of Mark’s Gospel appears in Matthew’s and more than 50 percent in the Gospel of Luke. Although the text lacks literary polish, it is simple and direct, and, as the earliest Gospel, it is the primary source of information about the ministry of Jesus."​


What your source has messed up however, is that it is only the last part of the gospel that most scholars agree was not written by him at the same time as the rest of it...

"The final passage in Mark (16:9–20) is omitted in some manuscripts, including the two oldest, and a shorter passage is substituted in others. Many scholars believe that these last verses were not written by Mark, at least not at the same time as the balance of the Gospel,"​
Now whilst there may be scholars who claim Mark didnt write the gospel, the problem is, Papius is the reference used for supporting authorship of Mark to the gospel. Papius is A.D 60-130.

Papias was a bishop at the church in Hierapolis in modern Turkey. Its pretty hard to claim a guy (a very educated writer btw) who actually lived at the time of the apostles and was a church leader at the time is wrong!

I would say that no one really knows who wrote the gospel, we do not really know who wrote any of the bible...no one has first hand eyewitness or the original autographs to know any of that for sure. We can only go on what evidence we do have. I know that Bart Erhman for example states that Papius writings are likely unreliable, however, the man clearly existed at the time of the apostles...if Papius claims it was written by Mark, an we dont have an earlier source who says otherwise, then we are only using textual criticism to go against what Papius writes. Erhman appears to apply the principle "if Papius was possibly wrong about something else, then he must be wrong about this" [paraphrased]. I have reservations about that claim from Erhman...we could apply that principle to his own work and therefore, Bart is discrediting himself and his own writings with his own words!

At the end of the day, who wrote the gospels doesnt really affect their authenticity. We know that the gospels are canonical largely because they remain harmonious with Old Testament writings and with each other. They pass the internal test. Grumbling over who wrote what doesnt change any of that.

I will add a word of caution regarding Bart Erhman, the man is a scholar whom i am in awe of, however, he has but one agenda...

to teach that whilst historically likely, the New Testament is not God's word.

Bart is not interested in the gospel...he was once a Christian but fell away and now is an apostate. Bart left the fold because he could not reconcile the lack of original autographs of the bible. He is sure that if there really is a God, then we should have the originals...and so what we have are just copies of copies of copies of copies...and these copies are corrupted and therefore contain significant errors such that the "God" part of the story is largely just made up (except for the historicity of it strangely enough...Bart seems to agree with most of that part)

Bart has this tendency to tell white lies and half truths...for example, on his website, there is an article on the authorship of Marks gospel. That article cites a reference (Richard Baukem) as support for the claim that the gospel is not written by Mark. However, when i actually checked the reference, it says the complete opposite. Here is part of the Amazon preamble for the reference supposedly supporting Erhman's website claim...

"'Jesus and the Eyewitness' argues that the four Gospels are closely based on the eyewitness testimony of those who knew Jesus. The author challenges the assumption that the accounts of Jesus circulated as 'anonymous community traditions', asserting instead that they were transmitted in the name of the original eyewitnesses."​

Clearly Bart's website has not accurately recorded the real intentions of the author it is referencing...to me they appear to have intentionally misrepresented the author they cite. Ive seen this quite a lot in online criticism of Barts work.
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
What your source has messed up however, is that it is only the last part of the gospel that most scholars agree was not written by him at the same time as the rest of it...
Which source? Where exactly? And how is any of this relevant?

I'm afraid that you're hopelessly confused. So let me ask a couple of terse, specific questions. Hopefully you'll choose to respond with terse, specific answers. Ready?
  1. Precisely what do claim to be historically proven?
  2. Precisely where might we find this historical proof?
  3. Precisely what is the provenance oh this historical proof?
 

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
Which source? Where exactly? And how is any of this relevant?
So let me ask a couple of terse, specific questions. Hopefully you'll choose to respond with terse, specific answers. Ready?
  1. Precisely what do claim to be historically proven?
  2. Precisely where might we find this historical proof?
  3. Precisely what is the provenance oh this historical proof?

Papias (A.D60-120), the earliest external eyewitness account that i believe we have on this topic,


Papias describes his way of gathering information in his preface:[11]

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.​

writes the following about the gospel of Mark...

On Mark, Papias cites John the Elder:​
The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai,[note 1] but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.​
The excerpt regarding Matthew says only:​
Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could.[note 2]
 

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
<yawn>

@AdamjEdgar, let me know if in when you choose to answer the questions posed ...​

</yawn>
Which source? Where exactly? And how is any of this relevant?
So let me ask a couple of terse, specific questions. Hopefully you'll choose to respond with terse, specific answers. Ready?
  1. Precisely what do claim to be historically proven?
  2. Precisely where might we find this historical proof?
  3. Precisely what is the provenance oh this historical proof?

Papias (A.D60-120), the earliest external eyewitness account that i believe we have on this topic,


Papias describes his way of gathering information in his preface:[11]

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

writes the following about the gospel of Mark...

On Mark, Papias cites John the Elder:
The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai,[note 1] but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.
The excerpt regarding Matthew says only:
Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could.[note 2]
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
We are not talking about the ceremonial laws for animal sacrifices and sin offerings and or the ceremonial shadow laws of the earthly Sanctuary and Levitical Priesthood and annual feast days and circumcision that are all now fulfilled in Christ to who they pointed to (see Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10-1-22.
These are simply not "ceremonial laws", which only goes to show that you did not even view the link I provided you that lists the 613 Commandments under the Law of Moses. However, if one is a Gentile who believes in Jesus, only his "Two Commandments" are necessary. Don't you believe him when he taught that? Do you really care?
 
Top