The evolution of the Great Commission over time.

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. 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?

Im starting to come around to the idea of doing for others...with no promise of a reward...is a noble philosophy. (It would be nice to get paid, though. The rent must be paid. ) I'll get back to the other arguments and discussions in the other topics when I can. This holiday season is quite busy for me. Lots of folk buying lots of food. 40 hours at the grocery store. Which is a blessing! I wont gamble it away...im getting too old to waste money. I now agree with the personal duty and responsibility charge. It rings true with my soul. Im not sure, however, why the woo factor is totally illogical nor wrong. We can discuss it more if you would like.

In my belief, who I am reflects how much I am allowing myself to decrease and Christ in me to increase. Some days I realize how selfish I really am. I repent, ask for wisdom, and resolve to try my best to be more generous...but in my belief I need Him in me to help. Perhaps on this point we could agree that the responsibility is mine--not His.I believe that GOD is Spirit and I believe that Gods Spirit is in communion--intermingling with my human spirit. I could never test nor show how this is possible and would leave it for others to observe me to verify or refute my claim.

OK, back to the topic. One thing that gets me about what the commission is is between two extremes. Some say that Christianity is all about what we do for others. Others say that Christianity is not about what we do entirely...it is about who He is and what He did for all of us. While I will agree that merely sharing the idea that He died for all of our sins past,present and future is not the entire message, I also dont agree that God is unknowable and that our focus should be entirely on simply doing for others with no promise of any hope nor reward nor even any certainty of an afterlife.I will agree that we should focus on doing for others all of the time and that we should not merely do things in expectation of favor or reward...either from God or humanity. One scripture grabbed my curiosity, however. Paul...in Romans: Is trying to do our best daily with no expectation of reward establishing our own righteousness? OK...so our charge is to try and do our best on a daily basis and repent for anything our conscience tells us is wrong. So to tell people that Christianity is not about who He is so much as about what we do would to me seem contradictory to what Paul was teaching. Comments?

Each day I am aware of how I have fallen short of what I know I should have or could have done. I realize, however, that I am human and can always improve. To me, its not so much guilt as it is conviction. I do. I dont have a negative self image nor a belief in impending doom in the world. I try to look at life and people optimistically.I believe that I can do it with Gods help.

If you want to limit the topic to what is said in the Bible, I'll step out. The fact is, the Great Commission is only possible with commissioners. jar is a commissioner as is Phat as is Tim, Buck, or Too. The Bible is only useful to humanity if it can be applied today...not just as some study of what folk did way back then.

Are you suggesting that Matthew had the original intent correct while Luke and John expanded the teaching into myth? Or are you suggesting that all of it is myth?It seems to me that you really prefer the charge to try and do your best--regardless of any promise. Perhaps your Mother had an influence in this regard. The Book of Acts explains the expansion of the "franchise". I know that you suspect that all later attempts were insincere.I believe that God revealed more to latter believers (after His Son died and was resurrected) than He did to former believers who were of course unfranchised Jews.

The issue is interpretation of the Great Commission. Paul states plainly that simply doing for others is a form of establishing ones own righteousness. He is challenging the original religion. You seem to prefer to keep it.

I covered this in Message 36 but I can do so again. What makes you convinced that the original had more truth than the latter additions/modifications? Is it because you want to believe it?I realize that you rant against the diminishment of personal and social responsibility. I get that. I would argue that Paul was correct. The original religion was more about personal responsibility and an unknown God. You argue that the evidence still shows this to be true. Paul may say that you are establishing your own righteousness based upon logic, reason, and (your perception of) reality. I defend the sizzle. (as you call it) I say that it is important that Christ lives today. I say that this belief does not diminish personal and social responsibility, however. It merely places God in charge over us rather than our own human vanity and hollow wisdom.

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

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