Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evolution of the Great Commission over time.
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 5 of 49 (572928)
08-08-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
08-08-2010 12:04 PM


If at first..
Jar writes:
If you read all of Matthew, you will find that what we are commanded to do is "try to do our best for others."
Hi Jar..
Welcome back to EvC.
You've been pushing this "try the best you can" doctrine for as long as I've been here. You say it's contained in Matthew but when I do a search for the word "try" in the NIV version of Matthew I find but 3 references - none connected to the notion of 'doing your best'.
Given that there is a world of difference between being instructed to do something and being instructed to try your best to do something, could you give some examples of places in Matthew where you think the trying element of your idea is suggested?
Or is this just something you're laying onto the text?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 08-08-2010 12:04 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 08-08-2010 6:07 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 8 of 49 (572934)
08-08-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
08-08-2010 6:07 PM


Re: If at first..
Jar writes:
Well I doubt you will find the word try so that doesn't surprise me much, but I also know that reality says that all we can do is try.
If the core message is 'try your best', I'd be very surprised if the text didn't suggest that idea. Seeing as it doesn't suggest it (you seem to agree), it appears that you are indeed laying this idea of yours onto the text.
-
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.
-
BUT...none of that has anything to do with the topic which is how the post resurrection story and the Great Commission changed over time.
Hmm.
If you're factually wrong about Jesus intent then I think it has quite a lot to do with things. How can you talk about something changing if you're not actually sure what it was to begin with?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 08-08-2010 6:36 PM iano has replied
 Message 24 by Bailey, posted 08-11-2010 2:12 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 9 of 49 (572935)
08-08-2010 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
08-08-2010 5:48 PM


Jar writes:
And instead of feeding and clothing and sheltering and comforting and teaching, all that is needed is for the apostle to preach repentance and remission of sin.
The Matthew passage talks of making disciples of men and teaching those disciples to do what Jesus commanded. But if making disciples involves men repenting then there is no issue: you'd simply have two elements in a sequence of x number of elements.
How do you arrive at the notion that something has changed - as opposed to having been expanded upon?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 08-08-2010 5:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 08-08-2010 6:40 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 13 of 49 (573048)
08-09-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
08-08-2010 6:40 PM


Jar writes:
Guess what, a change in emphasis and expanded upon are changes. As I pointed out, in Matthew the Great Commission offers no perks, no benefits to the Apostles. Gradually over time the authors, editors and redactors expanded on the myth.
Checkpoint: there is a difference between evolve (which implies a changing from one thing to the other) and expansion (which can imply an increasing degree of revelation with additional authors). I'm assuming this thread is dealing with the former idea.
One account talks about making disciples and what to those disciples should be taught. Another speaks of what is involved in disciples being made (repentence). I see no evolution here - just expansion (along the lines of increased revelation).
Could you explain why it is you plump for the former when the latter is possible?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 08-08-2010 6:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 08-09-2010 3:38 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 14 of 49 (573052)
08-09-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
08-08-2010 6:36 PM


Re: If at first..
jar writes:
I will admit you create a very attractive rabbit hole but while I think you have the beginnings of a great discussion of the difference between how you view Christianity and I view Christianity, it really is irrelevant to this topic.
I see your point. The above post considers things in a more general sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 08-08-2010 6:36 PM jar has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
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 replied

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

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
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 replied

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

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
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 replied

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

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
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 replied

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024