The evolution of the Great Commission over time.

For the sake of my enlightenment in addition to understanding the context of this discussion, I am rereading Matthew. Several things bother me about your interpretation. One of them is this idea that folks never really change inwardly but are eternally responsible for what they do. You seem to think, (as does ringo) that the act of doing is itself proof(if ever there was proof) of a changed heart and a desire to follow GOD through Jesus. Several things in Matthew were of note to me.

The Virgin Birth is emphasized. Modern day critics have tried to denounce this teaching, but I am never impressed with their conclusions chiefly because I sense their motive--which is to discredit the Bible in general as merely a book of human expression and marketing religion.

​

As the story goes, Joseph considered divorcing his bride since she was pregnant.

Matt 1:20-23 writes:

​

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"-which means, "God with us."

So I learn 3 things.
1) Jesus is conceived not of natural origin.
2) His mission is to save his people(The Jewish People) from their sins.
3) His name will essentially mean "God with us".

​

If Jesus while on earth was simply another human teacher, why would magi hear of him and come to worship him at birth? (Matthew 2:1) Also consider the OT prophecies mentioned early in Matthew. Is the author merely using them to embellish a story or do they confirm the events of the story?

​

I agree with you that works is mentioned often. Consider John The Baptist.

Matt 3:7-12 writes:

​

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducee's coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

​

To me, this hints at the idea that only Jews were chosen as being in error. God could and would raise up Gentiles later on in the story. The Great Commission may have eased the club rules somewhat, but this does not mean that Gods expectations for His children had changed. You are correct in that works are and should be emphasized.

​

"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Seems to me that baptism by the Holy Spirit is mentioned and that you have often asked how this happens and what it means. But lets continue...

​

We have the temptation of Christ in the desert. His message?
1) (Matt 4:4)'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.
2) (Matt 4:7) Do not put the Lord your God to the test.
3) Matt 4:10-Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'

​

Then we have the Beatitudes: (Matthew 5:1-48. I agree with you that the message is about Doing

​

Some questions:

So was the evolution of the post resurrection story and the Great Commission driven by marketing pressure?

1) Why dont you believe that people are capable of transformation and change? Why must any additions or alterations of the text be done with malicious or self serving intent? Is it not because the message that you received was accepted by you largely due to you trusting your teachers...namely your Mother and Joe Wood?
We can agree that your beliefs have been questioned by yourself long before any of us questioned them and that you believe firmly in logic, reason, and reality even over written scripture. If you can allow yourself to question, why dismiss any additions or revisions to "advertisers" who were "marketing" their own conclusions?

​

And lets take what you say about Luke.

​

In message 6, in reply to Iano, you quote Luke. In message 10, you say:

Jesus intent is also irrelevant to this topic since what we are dealing with here is how the marketing of the story changed over time, authors and redactors.

​

I would argue that Jesus intent is imperative to this topic. I maintain that each of us...through prayer...with respect to logic, reason, and reality....attempt to understand Jesus intent in regards to this topic.

​

The question may be put this way:
Was marketing pressure the cause of the evolution of the Great Commission over time or was progressive revelation...through a living Christ...the real pressure and catalyst for change?

​

Edited by Phat, : spelling

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

Of course Jesus intent is irrelevant since what is being discussed in what was reported and published. I'm sorry but once again is there any meaning in all that? Do you have any evidence that Jesus dictated each of the different accounts and so Jesus jess made stuff up and rewrote the sales material aover time?Phat, if you want to claim the utter nonsense con of progressive revelation that's fine but don't expect think people to buy such nonsense.

I'm just going with Matthew...which you suggested supported your argument.Again....Matthew 3:7-12 suggests why Jesus was born. Without Jesus, all you have is human-centric definitions of what type of charge we should have. In this regard, why should we trust jar over Paul?

Why should we trust ourselves (internal logic, reason, and reality) over what is written?

​

Why should we trust what was written in one book within the Bible over what was written in another?

​

Why should we accept our own marketing as sincere while accusing someone else of marketing a new religion? What makes our religion any better?

​

if you want to claim the utter nonsense con of progressive revelation that's fine but don't expect think people to buy such nonsense.

And I suppose thinking people are expected to buy your con of making up our own internalized charge, ignoring GOD,(or worse yet assuming that GOD is at best an internalized belief rather than an externalized reality)

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26

First, Matthew was not written by Paul and so it is irrelevant to a discussion about what is written in Bible stories other than Matthew. It is irrelevant to what Paul wrote.There are no other definitions than the Human centric ones. The Bible was written by humans, redacted by humans, edited by humans, the contents selected by humans, revised by humans, rewritten by humans, translated by humans ... ALL of the evidence says there is no one else to trust. All of what you know is filtered by human logic and illogic, reasoning and unreasoning, reality and fantasy. Well we can try to test using reason logic and reality in some cases but when it comes to the Bible in most cases that is impossible; so we should not trust either of them unless they can be tested using reason logic and reality. What we do have to do is acknowledge the differences. For example in this specific topic what is seen, is reality, is that the story changes over time and as retold and it changes from a very simply pretty straight forward story to one incorporating lots of WOO and fantastic powers and increasing benefits. Whether something is sincere or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is factual, reasonable, logical, based in reality or fantasy. And what makes one religion better? I would say whether or not it is beneficial for the population in general, members and non-members in THIS life. No, thinking people are expected to test both positions, look for evidence, check against reality, try to determine if there is any evidence of an externalized reality called GOD.