|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evolution of the Great Commission over time. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined:
|
Jar writes: Because it is not simply "expansion (which can imply an increasing degree of revelation with additional authors)". The stories change entirely; the local, characters, content, points of emphasis all change. No where does an author or editor or redactor say, "in addition to what so and so said, we are to xyz." The tale evolves, changes, markets different products, offers different benefits and rewards. There is no compelling need for author a) to reference author b) in order for expansion to occur. To suppose so would be to lay your expectations and thesis (the Bible is myth) on them. Seeing as we aren't discussing your thesis, we are permitted to suppose the Bible is the word of God - assembled through divine inspiration and in less than regimented-textbook fashion. Best to lay aside theses and consider what the text itself permits - free of presupposition. I've given a specific example where no problem exists between authors: make/teach disciples doesn't jar with how disciples are to be made. That can be seen as simple expansion and not necessarily evolution. Perhaps you could point to something specific where you think there has been an evolution (change from something into another thing) rather than generalising in a broad way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I thought I did. From the OP...
quote: As shown in the story, the tale of the Great Commission and the post resurrection period changed from tale to tale. This is a great example of how myths grow. Each succeeding author, editor, redactor changes the details, expands the story, modifies the scope and intent to fit that author, editor or redactors desires. Edited by jar, : hit wrong key Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Perhaps you can cut out the clutter of the OP and highlight the actual idea evolved.
I understand that idea of expansion (increasing revelation) is close to the idea of evolution but since the OP is yours, then so is the problem of differentiating between the two ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
iano writes: I understand that idea of expansion (increasing revelation) is close to the idea of evolution but since the OP is yours, then so is the problem of differentiating between the two ideas. The question is "why did the story change?" What does the evidence show? There is a long history of how myths develop over time. How does that methodology compare to what is seen in the post resurrection and Great Commission story? We know that the earliest Gospel originally didn't even mention the events after the empty tomb. There was no mention of either a post resurrection meeting between Jesus and his followers or of the Great Commission. The next earliest account is likely Matthew. It is the first to mention that there was a post resurrection meeting or a Great Commission and the story laid out is told simply. The eleven go to Galilee where supposedly they had been told to gather and they are instructed to go make disciples, baptize and tell folk to follow Jesus commandments. When you read the rest of Matthew those commandments seem to be all about doing for others, planning ahead, using the talents given you, doing for the least of these, healing, feeding, comforting, sheltering, clothing, teaching. There is no mention in the story of any benefits for the apostles or the disciples and the subject of sin or forgiveness or salvation simply doesn't even come up. At some later date a redactor came back and added material to Mark's Gospel. This time the story has a bunch of added details and embellishment. They are eating when Jesus appears. Where in the first version some doubt that it is Jesus but they worship him when they see him, in this version Jesus rebukes them for not believing what others (not those that are there) had said. In this version all they need to do is preach the good news and they are promised they will have magic powers to do tricks to convince folk. They are told that anybody that believes will get saved but doubters will be damned. In this second rendition of the story there is no mention of having to wait for the Holy Ghost to give them the special powers, it says they just got up and went out. We see additional embellishment and redirection of the story in John; more magic and woo-woo. In John they are in a locked door, hiding from the Jews but Jesus somehow gets in. He starts off by showing them his hands and side and there is no mention of the rebuke, and he breathes on them to give them the Holy Spirit. There is no mention of the snake handling or speaking in tongues and again, the power given to the folk changes. Now it is no longer even a matter of whether someone believes or not, it is totally in the hands of the disciples. They get to decide which sins are forgiven, which sins are not forgiven. The story again changes in Luke and in Acts and is not the same even there. Times for events change, the concept of Pentecost is introduced and the relatively final version of the story appears. This is a classic example of mythology developing over time. It is NOT simply revelation since at least three of the accounts were supposedly by folk that were there; it is an example of creative writing by individual people that change and modify the story to fit within the scope of the document they are creating, the mythology they are creating. It is a classic example best seen today in the "Urban Myth" where over time the details change and material is added. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Jar writes: The question is "why did the story change?" The preceding question, the one I'm asking, is: did the story change? If concluding it did, then 'why' becomes pertinant. -
What does the evidence show? Indeed. -
There is a long history of how myths develop over time. How does that methodology compare to what is seen in the post resurrection and Great Commission story? Checkpoint. Are we presupposing a myth here. If so, I'd appreciate a heads up as I'd have no interest in partaking further. Until then, I'll suppose we're not presupposing what isn't demonstrated. -
We know that the earliest Gospel originally didn't even mention the events after the empty tomb. There was no mention of either a post resurrection meeting between Jesus and his followers or of the Great Commission. Not relevant to the notion of expansion. -
The next earliest account is likely Matthew. It is the first to mention that there was a post resurrection meeting or a Great Commission and the story laid out is told simply. The eleven go to Galilee where supposedly they had been told to gather and they are instructed to go make disciples, baptize and tell folk to follow Jesus commandments. When you read the rest of Matthew those commandments seem to be all about doing for others, planning ahead, using the talents given you, doing for the least of these, healing, feeding, comforting, sheltering, clothing, teaching. There is no mention in the story of any benefits for the apostles or the disciples and the subject of sin or forgiveness or salvation simply doesn't even come up. Again, no issue for the notion of expansion. Nothing has evolved so far. -
At some later date a redactor came back and added material to Mark's Gospel. This time the story has a bunch of added details and embellishment. They are eating when Jesus appears. Where in the first version some doubt that it is Jesus but they worship him when they see him, in this version Jesus rebukes them for not believing what others (not those that are there) had said. In this version all they need to do is preach the good news and they are promised they will have magic powers to do tricks to convince folk. They are told that anybody that believes will get saved but doubters will be damned. In this second rendition of the story there is no mention of having to wait for the Holy Ghost to give them the special powers, it says they just got up and went out. You'll have gotten the jist by now. What problem for expansion of revelation thus far (assuming something was added later)? -
We see additional embellishment and redirection of the story in John; more magic and woo-woo. In John they are in a locked door, hiding from the Jews but Jesus somehow gets in. He starts off by showing them his hands and side and there is no mention of the rebuke, and he breathes on them to give them the Holy Spirit. There is no mention of the snake handling or speaking in tongues and again, the power given to the folk changes. Now it is no longer even a matter of whether someone believes or not, it is totally in the hands of the disciples. They get to decide which sins are forgiven, which sins are not forgiven. Aren't you jumping all over the place here? Look at the italicised section: whether someone believes or not dealt with their being saved or damned (you said). Why do you then suppose that's the same issue as sin foregiveness (if not simply inserting your own theology onto the text)? I can't see an issue with something being mentioned in one gospel and not in another - at least not in terms of it supporting your evolutionary theory. -
The story again changes in Luke and in Acts and is not the same even there. Times for events change, the concept of Pentecost is introduced and the relatively final version of the story appears. Are we dealing with story evolution. Or supposed inconsistancies between accounts? If story evolution then you need to be specific: evolution involved something changing into something else but being recognisable as that which went before. -
This is a classic example of mythology developing over time. It is NOT simply revelation since at least three of the accounts were supposedly by folk that were there; What is the significance of that (that means we must read evolution and not expanding revelation) -
It is a classic example best seen today in the "Urban Myth" where over time the details change and material is added. You seem to be claiming that which you need to be demonstrating. Perhaps you could help by indicating what evolution can have that mere expansion of revelation cannot? Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The evidence is the stories themselves. I presented what I see. The story most certainly did change, that is a given. I included the text of the five related versions and each one is different.
If you wish to present a case for "expanded revelation" whatever that is, then please do so. This is a thread where you can present the support for your position. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Jar writes: The evidence is the stories themselves. I presented what I see. The story most certainly did change, that is a given. What you see and what the stories themselves permit are two different things. Why the avoidance of specifics - because when we look at specifics we find that the story doesn't (so far) evidence your position 1) Author I carries instruction to make disciples and what to teach them. Author II carries instruction on what is involved in disicples being made. That isn't evolution of a story. Nor is it a change in a story. 2) Author A talks of believing being involved in salvation. Author B talks of forgiveness of sin outside the context of salvation. That's not evolution of a story. Nor is it change. It's not even the same category of issue - unless you're making that theological claim. -
If you wish to present a case for "expanded revelation" whatever that is, then please do so. This is a thread where you can present the support for your position. Expanding revelation means what it suggests: different authors focusing on different aspects of the same thing, the combination of all authors building a more complete picture. 1) above is an example of expansion: two authors deal with different elements of the same thing. This thread contains your claim of evolution and it's for you to support your position. I've plucked out two specific examples (above), where your idea stumbles (over the most elementary of fences it seems) and am asking whether you can give us an specific example of what you're talking about. Evolution, a change from one thing into the other thing. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Can I ask you to actually include the text that supports your assertion?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4391 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Hope things are well with you all ..
iano writes: jar writes: If you are instructed to do something don't you think it would be a good idea to try to do your best? If the instruction was to do something and I, like everyone else, found that I couldn't do it - but could only do partial version of it - then I might pause from my trying and query the purpose of the instruction. Given the lack of suggestion that my 'trying' was the name of the game, I mean. So no, I don't suppose so. It seems in iano's story, he - while speaking for everybody else, is somehow prevented from obtaining salvation through any genuine effort. This response to jar above appears to serve as a fine example of how a story changes over time by using selective marketing and systematic nullification techniques.
quote: There is the sense that Zach's choice not to claim righteousness or defend himself against the accusations of the dogmatics who hurled insults in his general direction are highlighted in his resolution to ignore the critics and address Joshua directly as he reveals to his new master that he has donated - if only, half of his possesions to the poor. While Zach didn't give up everything, it seems his attempt to do the right thing was met with considerable success. In iano's theology, one must focus on their inability to foster positive change in their relationships with others, and indeed the world at large, while nullfying the various scriptural accounts which go to great lengths attempting to demonstrate that a person(s) with the proper motivating impulse may do just that. As a result of Zach's meeting with Joshua, and making an honest attempt to adhere to the basic principles of reconciliation which Joshua has set forth within his interpretation of the ToRaH, he was a changed individual - who Joshua then suggests 'salvation' has come to his 'household'. The lynchpin within this passage appears to be rather that the actual attempt at following directions, as juxtaposed with adherence to a mysteriously roman(tic) ritual atonement killing, is that which yields a result in Zach's favor, then justifying Joshua's commendation. Kudos to you iano .. ABE: As an aside and more in the vein of your's and jar's current discussion, there seems to be certain changes and distinctions - as opposed to the concept of expansionism, in how each booklet deals with the Ruach HaKodesh or the Holy Spirit.
Mark ~ No reception of such among disciples whether pre or post ascension or related discussion by the Anointed One .. (with the exception of the 'Spirit descending like a dove' on Joshua at his baptism of repentance) Matis ~ No reception of such among disciples whether pre or post ascension or related discussion by the Anointed One ..(with the exception of the 'Spirit of God descending on' Joshua 'like a dove' at his baptism of repentance) Luke ~ Joshua tells disciples to stay in the city until he sends what his 'Father promised', then promptly ascends ..(No further discussion on behalf of Joshua, nor further revelation concerning any reception of the Ruach HaKodesh) Acts ~ Joshua tells disciples they'll 'receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon' them, then promptly ascends ..(Disciples receive the 'Holy Spirit' and the gift of tongues outside of Joshua's corporeal presence, without the aid of his breath) John ~ Joshua breathes on disciples and says 'Receive the Holy Spirit', before he (presumably) ascends ..(No mention of tongues or being accused of drunkeness at 9 in the mornin' as a side effect) Does the difference between the time lines and various other specifics and omissions seem like it may indicate a possibility that numerous communities viewed the narratives each within their own distinct context? How do you reconcile your views of expansion - rather than the notion of distinctly separate story lines or jar's suggested concept of evolution, when regarding the reception of the Ruach HaKodesh ? One Love Edited by Bailey, : Added question .. I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself. Mercy Trumps Judgement,Love Weary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The needs of the time changed. The author of Mark portrays an imminent overthrow of the bad forces by God. Jesus is preparing people for that day that is upon them and the new kingdom on Earth. The people needed to join the forces of good. IOW, repent. By the time John is written, the imminent issue is gone. The author of John presents Jesus as equal with God and Jesus teaches that the kingdom is above with God, not here on Earth.
quote:I would say yes. It changed to fit the needs of the religion. When the kingdom didn't manifest itself on earth, they had to adjust accordingly to keep the people interested. They had a lot of other religions to compete with for followers. The religion evolved and continues to evolve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
jar writes: If you are instructed to do something don't you think it would be a good idea to try to do your best? Hi jar You talk about trying to do your best. I would suggest that it isn’t about trying. To use the second person singular as you have done, it is about who you are as a person. Micah 6:8 tells us
quote:Are you the kind of person who instinctively has come to find joy in kindness whether it be in yourself or in others. Does injustice cause you to be sorrowful? Or on the other side of the ledger do you feel a smug satisfaction in the downfall of someone who you just don’t happen to like? CS Lewis writes that the great sin is pride. Do you think that because of your superior brain, athletic ability or looks that you are somehow a cut above someone else who isn’t as gifted. So (even though the quote says to do justice) I would suggest that it isn’t about either trying or doing as the trying and the doing is just a result of who you really are as a person. Do we humbly love justice and kindness? In Matthew 22:34-40 Jesus tells us
quote:Once again, it isn’t about either trying or doing. It is about love. Do we love God, do we love our neighbour or is it all about ourselves? To tie it back to the opening post. Look at the Micah quote: what does the Lord require of you?. He doesn’t go on to say that that you have to believe a certain theology. The great commission is about building a church, guided by His Holy Spirit, to carry on the work of Jesus, by taking His message of hope, justice, peace, mercy, forgiveness and above all love to the world. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Totally lost me there.
I don't see how "who you are" even has much meaning. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
GDR writes: CS Lewis writes that the great sin is pride. I'd have said despair. Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?! -Gogol Bordello Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:It doesn't matter what Micah wrote. This thread is about the "Great Commission" described by the various gospel writers and how it changed over time. Which Gospel speaks of building a church to carry on the work of Jesus?Which Gospel depicts Jesus' work as spreading a message of hope, justice, peace, mercy, forgiveness and love, to people other than the Jews? There is no Great Commission in Mark. In Matthew we have the well known "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." It is interesting though that in the Book of Acts the author doesn't portray the disciples as baptizing that way. (Acts 2:38, 10:48)
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. So he [Peter] ordered that they [Gentiles] be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Of course baptism wasn't part of Luke's Great Commission, just repentance and remission of sins. When we conflate the gospels, we then create a fifth gospel. They weren't written to be sewn together. Matthews version seems to be the tradition the early church fathers quoted, although a little shorter.
Ignatius Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. They left off the part about obeying commands. It changes as the needs of the religion changes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
jar writes: Trying to do what Jesus charged us to do was a hard sell in his day and near impossible today. So shortly after his death the various folk trying to market the franchise started making the product more attractive, selling the sizzle instead of the steak. Do we have any evidence that they were simply trying to sell these ideas...ostensibly to make money or earn a living? And why would people simply do what Jesus wanted them to do if there were no promises of any kind? It would be more profitable to go back to fishing.
jar writes: It would be quite sobering and pessimistic if we found evidence that religion was simply a for profit venture all along. I can see how its wise and noble for us to do unto others and to try and do our best and find them jobs and food and shelter and so forth. What gets me is that, even if there was originally no promise of a reward, there was a threat of punishment for not doing these things. Who on earth would want to worship such a harsh taskmaster?
This trend of marketing Christianity has continued on down until today. You gotta admit that telling someone all they need to do is believe and get baptized is a whole lot easier to sell then telling them they gotta do for the least of these with no guarantee of reward.....was the evolution of the post resurrection story and the Great Commission driven by marketing pressure?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024