I ve nearly forgotten it: For what reason is Jesus the "mediator" for only a small group of anointed ones? What is the "mediating, conciliating" act or activity at all for these small group in contrary to all other little sheep? Is it merely the theoretical applying of the benetifts of his ransom sacrifice or something really comprehensible?
TheWonderofYou
JoinedPosts by TheWonderofYou
-
7
I just realized something that I didn't realize before
by Island Man injws teach that only the anointed should partake of the emblems at the memorial because they are in the new covenant but the rest of jws are not.. well, if we follow that logic, shouldn't they also teach that only the anointed should pray in jesus' name?
they teach that jesus is the mediator between jehovah and the anointed only and that the "other sheep" are going to be beneficiaries of the new covenant but are not party to it.
the exact same reasoning applies to the memorial - the anointed are in the covenant but the "other sheep" are not.
-
-
-
19
As a Work of Literature The Bible is Just Dreadful
by cofty inof course it's easy to criticise the bible for all manner of serious flaws, but it fails on a more basic level.. it is just a terrible piece of literature.. this piece on "southern skeptic" is well worth a read.. god is a terrible writer....
-
-
TheWonderofYou
CalebinFloroda:
Read about that too, very good commented, many formulas or texts that look to be "orginally" biblical were used
before in service and sayings.The Revelation of John e.g. was not intended to bo read personally at home but was intended to be read in service as upbuilding hope.
I remember that I read that somewhere in the 2 Gonzales' Explaination of Johns Revelation: Do you know it?
-
19
As a Work of Literature The Bible is Just Dreadful
by cofty inof course it's easy to criticise the bible for all manner of serious flaws, but it fails on a more basic level.. it is just a terrible piece of literature.. this piece on "southern skeptic" is well worth a read.. god is a terrible writer....
-
-
TheWonderofYou
The early christians began to fabulate like the apocalytic jewish prophets, perhaps they did it even better?
There were streams withing the church that were chiliastic, John wrote the apocalypse, revelation,..especially in times of persecution people liked those stories.
But a end time hystery like in a cult was not the church's general attitude, i think.
I thinke one reason that the church did not put so strong meaning to the bible reading for all christians was, that the bible would after the end of the antique time in the western world not be understood easily at all anymore.
Later the protestant reformation and some single wolfes rediscovered the bible and got overexegerated of the apocalpytic pictures and thought to understand it literally is super. then came the mormons, the adventists and the messianic jews and all are so fascintated of the literal meanings and second fulfilmments. OMG.
-
49
What kind of errors in the Bible?
by TheWonderofYou inthe new testament specialist daniel wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the new testament, this number is very misleading.
most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like.
a side by side comparison between the two main text families (the majority text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18].
-
-
TheWonderofYou
Did he try to make the dogs bolloks citation to show the prophecy-fullfillment but did he fail to
understand that "even on a colt, the foal of a donkey'" was only a poetic paralellism?
-
49
What kind of errors in the Bible?
by TheWonderofYou inthe new testament specialist daniel wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the new testament, this number is very misleading.
most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like.
a side by side comparison between the two main text families (the majority text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18].
-
-
TheWonderofYou
Was Matthew's writer a splendid rethoric who used the hebrew scripture and its greek version the septuagint LXX in the most wonderful way - rabbinic like - or was he a scharlatan who misquoted Gods word to make the impression that Christ is the awaited jewish messiah? He shall be innocent until proven guilty anyway. He is our best gospel writer still about the kingdom. I am currently reading all google books previews where i can find something about two donkeys and Jesus entry. Already found some interesting books about grammar and rethoric in Matthew, there are many sientific books about that matter. You need to compare and go into detail. But interesting
The important site Zechariah 9,9
"Rejoice greatly, o daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph o daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you, he is just and endowed with salvation, humble and mounted on donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey"
which is speculated that Matthew mistranslated or only copied from a unknow version of the greek bible translation called septuagint
"Say to daugther Zion, see your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey" Matthew 21,5.
Is not merely a citation of Matthew of a greek translation of Zecharia but even more interesting. Its not merely a misunderstood copying. Some researchers say that he tried to cite the hebrew spricture in a special kind, that is a even a better translation of the hebrew origian than the Septuagint made. Did h try to make the dogs bolloks citation to show the prophecy-fullfillment with the example ot this one site. And did he fail?
-
49
What kind of errors in the Bible?
by TheWonderofYou inthe new testament specialist daniel wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the new testament, this number is very misleading.
most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like.
a side by side comparison between the two main text families (the majority text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18].
-
-
TheWonderofYou
Is gospel Matthew really an Eyewitness report or is it not more a early rabbinic rethoric, Matthew was written for a audience in Syria, perhaps Damascus, as we hear from the bibel exegets, where a mixed community of many jewish-christians and many jews lived togehter, the daily problem was to preach the christian gospel to the jews, the aim of the gospel matthew was to explain a Jew with all best jewish rethoric methods that fulfills all dreams of sophistacted Jew or rabbi at this time. Written for a apostolic school e.c.
Some believe Matthew is an eyewitness report? We could think, okay, Matthew read in Mark and Luke about one donkey,ojojoj they forgot the second and added I will add it. And now everything is clear. I write about two because I have the septuagint version with two monkeys, after all here stand "and", although I know that this was a paralelis. Doens not mind me, i create a wonderful story about two donkeys and the citation has to fit my idea.
But his usage of the Septuagint citation and interpreting in a some creative crazy way and directing it to a such sophisticated jewish-christian audience,he should have known that a misinterpretation of the scripture would bring resistance, incomprehenions under the jewish audience. But the gospel of Matthew became the most prominent. Was the jewish audience completely unaware of the hebrew bible text? Where they uneducated? Could they be easily be mislead of the christian sect leaders? Could they made believe by these constructions that Jesus fulfills every prophesy and would they never notice his errorr? Was it Matthews big mistake? Did it destroy his least fame and scientific reputation?
found that https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=25755
I notice that the different verions 1 donkey- 2 donkey is a good example of in which manner the biblical canon developed. The different stories in the gospels, here Mat, Lk, and Mk have not been harmonized. Never. Would not be a harmonisation important to avoid misunderstandings of the readers? Today perhaps yes. But Jesus never said to anyone that they should write gospels for the audience! He did not say that they will go around with bibels to preach and they shall translate it in all languages. It was because of the love for stories that the church wrote down the storeis about Jesus. But it was not necessary at all to read the stuff it became a tradition. The church decided to read some scriptures in the assemblies, but it was not necessary for every christian to study the bible - say the complicated words of the relevation or the letters of paul - to buy or make a copy of parchments or papyry or to open translation offices.
Moreover the bible was only understandable in the antic asian world with knowledge of their customs, why should the whole world read that book at all? The western church had many problems to understand it. - the jewish concepts, because of the sepration between jews and christians. Because the holy spirit found it would be not bad to use it as study material, because god decided lately that this was his only possibility to speak to man? Doesnt God have other possibities than written letters? Doesnt God speak to hearts (as is written in the Bible) when it is silent and in moments when no crazy and busy writing committees are around, which could destroy the silence ? Did Jesus not 40 days keep silent in the desert to contact God before accomplishing his will and not reading in parchments?
Later more about the citation....
-
49
What kind of errors in the Bible?
by TheWonderofYou inthe new testament specialist daniel wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the new testament, this number is very misleading.
most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like.
a side by side comparison between the two main text families (the majority text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18].
-
-
TheWonderofYou
"You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. The canon is rather the separation that came about because of the intuitive insight of Christian believers. They could hear the voice of the Good Shepherd in the gospel of John; they could hear it only in a muffled and distorted way in the Gospel of Thomas, mixed in with a lot of other things. "When the pronouncement was made about the canon, it merely ratified what the general sensitivity of the church had already determined. You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books. These documents didn't derive their authority from being selected; each one was authoritative before anyone gathered them together. The early church merely listened and sensed that these were authoritative accounts."
Found that in the interview with Bruce Metzger
-
49
What kind of errors in the Bible?
by TheWonderofYou inthe new testament specialist daniel wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the new testament, this number is very misleading.
most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like.
a side by side comparison between the two main text families (the majority text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18].
-
-
TheWonderofYou
Thank you for so many comments. I will have to check thoroughly.
My comment refers to the New Testament, the christian scriptures,
The orginal writings are not conserved because they were written on papyri and parchment.
The text is not errorless but anyhow the church treated the gospels and letters as holy.
The scriptures played always an important role in the church and were translate into many languages already early.
The gospel writers were very creative writers to convince some jews to become christians, so they changed the meaning of words that were used in Hebrew bible and gave them a new meaning in the christian context.
E.g. the man of sorrows in Jesaja 53 an hundreds of other examples.
The NT is thus a document of the church's faith. But not everything that is important for the faith is written down in the bible.
The bible canon was not a rewriting of older manuscripts at the church council,
http://www.consider.org/library/text.htm
Permanet problems that bible translators have to face:
http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_trans_metzger3.html
Canon, Textual Criticism and Copies of copies, the wealth of evidence, Interview with Bruce Metzger:
http://ho-logos.blogspot.co.at/2009/02/canon-textual-criticism-and-more-with.html
-
754
Theists, why does God allow suffering..
by The Quiet One in..specifically, the suffering of animals.
you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.
i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.
-
-
TheWonderofYou
cofty: The answer of the catolic church is according to pope john paul II., Yes, God is in a certain wise powerless and he stands on the side of the suffering ones like the biblical "man of sorrows". I ask for patience because english is not my motherlangue.
Furthter its seems to be that the whole creation - and men are part of creation expecially if we think of the natural laws that lead to human life, and the natural laws that regulate our life and our pain - has the same fate as the other creation living and non living, and as animals.
Sparrows: Jesus said that God knows about the fate of the sparrows not because he was anaware of their actual lifesituation, but to show that God stands on our side, that God is our only hope for salvation, and in the jewish-christian thinking context, that fate of mankind is always the fate of the whole cosmos.
Jesus'suffering was not a necessary quanititive asset to be paid to a God or the Devil as ransom, but is the merely the conclusion of a devoted life, thus his suffering is the same suffering that we face , it is a suffering "with us together", a kind of solidarity. like a brother gives his life for his sister or similar.
I looked up more infos about that matter and will write later beginning what the hebrew sprictures tell about suffering.
-
754
Theists, why does God allow suffering..
by The Quiet One in..specifically, the suffering of animals.
you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.
i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.
-
-
TheWonderofYou
Cofty asked meSo Jesus' god is powerless in the face of a tsumani is he? I thought he made the universe.
If you are positing that the god of Jesus is as powerless do anything in the world as a crying baby then that is an interesting theology. It is one way of getting god off the hook. Christians tend to resort to some form of deism when faced with reality but I have never seen it done so thoroughly. It suggests an obvious question of why bother worshipping such a useless deity?
Another comment was : Jesus suffering has no worth