Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2017 8:49 AM
402 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, frako, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Tangle (7 members, 395 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,436 Year: 19,042/21,208 Month: 1,801/3,111 Week: 22/574 Day: 22/38 Hour: 5/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   The evolution of the Great Commission over time.
iano
Member (Idle past 652 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


(1)
Message 16 of 49 (573070)
08-09-2010 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
08-09-2010 3:38 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 08-09-2010 3:38 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 08-09-2010 4:10 PM iano has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29141
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 17 of 49 (573071)
08-09-2010 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by iano
08-09-2010 3:55 PM


I thought I did. From the OP...

quote:
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.

That is not just a new tactic, by the time the author of John's Gospel was writing the advertising it was pretty obvious. Look at the Great Commission as found in Matthew 28:

quote:
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

"19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

Obey what I have commanded you.

If you read all of Matthew, you will find that what we are commanded to do is "try to do our best for others."

There is nothing in there about salvation, nothing in there about an afterlife, nothing in there about any benefits that the disciples would get. It is about going and doing, about feeding and clothing and seeing that folk have clean water and shelter and jobs.

By the time the advertiser came back and revised Mark adding the "Long Ending", the Great Commission had begun to change.

quote:
14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.


Originally Mark ended with just an empty tomb and the women running away afraid, but that was a really hard sell. So at sometime someone came back and added the parts from Mark 16:10-20.

This version is much different. It now has some real benefits, salvation just for believing and getting baptized and the chance to do some really neat tricks. It is a much easier sale, all you need to do is go profess the "Good News" rather than just doing little stuff like feeding and clothing and shelter. AND it offers a real reward.

Then along came the author of John, and he makes the deal even sweeter.

quote:
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."


Now the doors are locked and Jesus still shows up and for the first time, the disciples are given the power to even override GOD. If they forgive sins the sins are forgiven but if they don't forgive sins then the person is damned.

Now that is real power.

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. And you gotta admit telling folk "I have the power to damn you" is a pretty strong incentive.

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


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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by iano, posted 08-09-2010 3:55 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by iano, posted 08-09-2010 4:50 PM jar has responded
 Message 30 by Phat, posted 05-19-2012 11:14 AM jar has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 652 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 18 of 49 (573077)
08-09-2010 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
08-09-2010 4:10 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 08-09-2010 4:10 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 08-09-2010 5:43 PM iano has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29141
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 19 of 49 (573082)
08-09-2010 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by iano
08-09-2010 4:50 PM


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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by iano, posted 08-09-2010 4:50 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by iano, posted 08-09-2010 6:12 PM jar has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 652 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 20 of 49 (573092)
08-09-2010 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
08-09-2010 5:43 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 08-09-2010 5:43 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 08-09-2010 6:28 PM iano has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29141
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 21 of 49 (573097)
08-09-2010 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by iano
08-09-2010 6:12 PM


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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by iano, posted 08-09-2010 6:12 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by iano, posted 08-10-2010 3:03 AM jar has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 652 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 22 of 49 (573140)
08-10-2010 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
08-09-2010 6:28 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 08-09-2010 6:28 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 08-10-2010 8:28 AM iano has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29141
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 23 of 49 (573166)
08-10-2010 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by iano
08-10-2010 3:03 AM


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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by iano, posted 08-10-2010 3:03 AM iano has not yet responded

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 1839 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 24 of 49 (573472)
08-11-2010 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by iano
08-08-2010 6:20 PM


A Fine Example
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:
Luke 19:7

And when the people saw it, they all complained, He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.

8 ~ But Zacchaeus stopped and said to the Master, Look, Master, half of my possessions I now give to the poor,

And if I have cheated anyone of anything, I am paying back four times as much!

9 ~ Then Joshua said to him, Today salvation has come to this household, because he too is a son of Abraham!


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by iano, posted 08-08-2010 6:20 PM iano has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 927 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 25 of 49 (580201)
09-08-2010 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
08-08-2010 12:04 PM


Needs Changed
quote:
That is not just a new tactic, by the time the author of John's Gospel was writing the advertising it was pretty obvious.
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:
So was the evolution of the post resurrection story and the Great Commission driven by marketing pressure?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 08-08-2010 12:04 PM jar has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 26 of 49 (580255)
09-08-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
08-08-2010 6:07 PM


Re: If at first..
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 isnt 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:
He has told you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justice, to love kindness,
And to walk humbly with your God?

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 dont 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 isnt as gifted.

So (even though the quote says to do justice) I would suggest that it isnt 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:
But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

Once again, it isnt 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 doesnt 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 08-08-2010 6:07 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 11:22 AM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Omnivorous, posted 09-08-2010 1:44 PM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 29 by purpledawn, posted 09-08-2010 3:25 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29141
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 27 of 49 (580257)
09-08-2010 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by GDR
09-08-2010 11:20 AM


Re: If at first..
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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 09-08-2010 11:20 AM GDR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 11-23-2014 8:47 AM jar has responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 437 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 28 of 49 (580289)
09-08-2010 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by GDR
09-08-2010 11:20 AM


Re: If at first..
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 09-08-2010 11:20 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 927 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 29 of 49 (580303)
09-08-2010 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by GDR
09-08-2010 11:20 AM


Great Commission
quote:
To tie it back to the opening post. Look at the Micah quote: what does the Lord require of you?. He doesnt 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.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 09-08-2010 11:20 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9495
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 30 of 49 (662829)
05-19-2012 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
08-09-2010 4:10 PM


Marketing A Franchise
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:

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?

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 08-09-2010 4:10 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 05-19-2012 11:52 AM Phat has responded

  
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017