Choosing a faith

I agree either Markan or Matthean priority necessarily exclude Q. It kinda does beg the question then of why Streeter would come up with his hypothesis by using Q when there is no mention of it in any document. It would have been foundational in the early church had it existed. There are two lines of thought on what Papias wrote. The first is that the translation of Papias is that he wrote in the Hebrew style which could mean that he wrote it in Greek but with Hebrew references. Secondly simply that it has been lost. My own opinion from reading all that I could find, is that he wrote initially in Aramaic with the local audience but very soon afterwards translated into Greek for a much broader audience.I don't see why a very early Aramaic version would make a difference. Barton contends that it was available in Greek by 44AD. He talks about Q in Chap 8. In addition I bought and read the book Why Four Gospels by David Alan Black which is what me interested in the subject in the first place. Here is the quote from Daniel 7.

quote:

---

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.
14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

---

The Son of Man was a messianic term which Jesus used often. It might not use the word throne but if you have a kingdom you probably have a throne. As I read the timeline He met them in Jerusalem and the told them to go to Galilee.

What Kleinman said.

You constantly repeat this but you never provide any evidence. Paul never claims to have met any eyewitnesses. If you believe he does present the evidence.

quote:

---

I agree with the first part and have stated that previously. Just how does Luke use Matthew if Matthew wasn't written first?

---

As I pointed out early in the conversation it is widely agreed that Matthew was written before Luke. That does not in any way require that Matthew was written before Mark - which is the real question.

quote:

---

It never was about an earthly throne. I just wrote a long answer to Tangle about the end time prophesies. I would add though that I don't believe that Jesus had supernatural knowledge about the future. Yes He predicted the war and what the Romans would do as a result.

---

I think that it was always about an earthly throne - certainly it was at the start. Besides your reply to Tangle completely leaves out the bit about God coming down and sorting the mess out. Or the bit about Heaven and Earth passing away later in the chapter. At least have the honesty to admit that they are there.

quote:

---

I agree that I overstated the case but we have the account of Peter denying Him and then this quote from John 20. However I pretty much agree with you

---

We also have the fact that there is no sign that the authorities were after them. None of them were arrested with Jesus. There is no mention of any of them getting into any trouble until quite a bit later and for other reasons. Even announcing the Resurrection - long after it supposedly happened - didn’t get any of them arrested.

quote:

---

I agree either Markan or Matthean priority necessarily exclude Q.

---

I hope you meant that “neither” exclude it because that is the obvious fact. It is silly to suggest otherwise.

quote:

---

It kinda does beg the question then of why Streeter would come up with his hypothesis by using Q when there is no mention of it in any document. It would have been foundational in the early church had it existed.

---

No it doesn’t. If you were familiar with Streeter’s arguments you would know that - and we have discussed 5 in this thread.Streeter felt that the evidence was against Luke using Matthew as a source. Another source, used by both was considered the best answer by Streeter and other scholars found his arguments persuasive,

quote:

---

There are two lines of thought on what Papias wrote. The first is that the translation of Papias is that he wrote in the Hebrew style which could mean that he wrote it in Greek but with Hebrew references. Secondly simply that it has been lost. My own opinion from reading all that I could find, is that he wrote initially in Aramaic with the local audience but very soon afterwards translated into Greek for a much broader audience.

---

I don’t find the first convincing at all. A style is not the same as a language. And any relationship between an Aramaic documents written by Matthew and the Gospel we have is purely conjectural.

quote:

---

I don't see why a very early Aramaic version would make a difference. Barton contends that it was available in Greek by 44AD.

---

Barton can claim what he likes, it is evidence that matters. What evidence links this lost document to the Gospel we have?

quote:

---

He talks about Q in Chap 8.

---

I know, I read it. It’s awful.

quote:

---

Here is the quote from Daniel 7.

---

Which does not mention a throne, simply stating that the “one like a son of man” (who is not the Messiah - likely intended to be Michael) would rule over the people of the Earth.

quote:

---

The Son of Man was a messianic term which Jesus used often. It might not use the word throne but if you have a kingdom you probably have a throne.

---

The one in Daniel is implicitly not even a Son of Man (and the term just means “human being”). And since the kingdom is earthly why should the throne not be earthly, too?

quote:

---

As I read the timeline He met them in Jerusalem and the told them to go to Galilee

---

Luke completely disagrees. In Luke the women met Jesus and told the Disciples. He did NOT say that the disciples should go to Galilee. Then Jesus met two on the road to Emmaus and told them to stay in Jerusalem until after Pentecost. And they are never told to go to Galilee - nor is there any mention of their going, even in Acts.
Your supposed analogy completely breaks down - the differences in the accounts are two great,

Perhaps I don't understand the metaphor at all.
If he chose to be a stone mason - what's the point of being surprised that he's happy his stone work was used in something important? Wouldn't any stonemason appreciate that... because that's why they chose to be stonemasons?I just don't see how this applies as a metaphor to humans and God providing/arranging purpose.
What is it trying to say? The point isn't that one can reach something that the other can't.
The point is that one has a much better chance at reaching the highest level than the other does.If 100% happy marriage or 100% ultimate purpose is the goal... would you want it to be arranged or chosen?
Arranged can get there... but only if the people involved "happen to" choose the same as the arranged decision.
Freely-chosen ones can get there... and it's more likely... because it's chosen by the one who's happiness matters in the first place. I would agree... if the stone mason apprentice freely chose to become a stone mason... because this aligns with my analogy of free-choice marraige as opposed to arranged marriage. (Arranged marriage would be as if the stone mason apprentice didn't choose to become a stone mason.) That may very well be true.
And, if true... it only makes sacrificial love God's ultimate purpose and His ultimate hope for humans.
And if that's what you mean... I wish that would be what you say instead of "ultimate purpose comes from God!" Because this has nothing to do with what humans' ultimate purpose actually is.If God assigns an ultimate purpose to humans... this is God writing a robotic code-command into humans... which you're saying God wouldn't want.
Which means humans' ultimate purpose cannot come from God. It may align with God's hope... but doesn't come from Him. This is MY point.Free choice (purpose derived from within) is more important/greater-than/ultimate.
The novice freely choosing to be a stone mason.
Marriage by choice rather than arranged.
Ultimate purpose comes from within and can be anything.
It can match someone else's "ultimate purpose"... but this is irrelevant to it being that original person's ultimate purpose.God doesn't "give anybody" ultimate purpose.
God has a purpose and we all individually come up with our own purpose.
God wants us to match His purpose.
You want to match God's purpose.
Therefore... for YOU... this is your ultimate purpose.But that absolutely does not mean that your purpose or God's purpose is all of humanity's "ultimate purpose."If I chose to be a stone mason and make bad ass building ornaments... that would be my "ultimate purpose" regardless of it matching God's or yours or anyone's.Maybe God wouldn't be happy.
Maybe you wouldn't be happy.
But I don't care - I'm a bad-ass stone mason making my bad-ass ornaments. - I'm happy.
That's how purpose works.
That's what makes it "ultimate."
Me (in my bad-ass stone mason example) following sacrificial love would be a lesser purpose - it would take away from my bad ass ornament creation.If you say human's "ultimate purpose" is sacrificial love because that's what God wants... it's nothing more than showing that you have no idea how purpose works, why it matters, and completely goes against all this "freely-choosing-to-be-a-stone-mason" stuff you're talking about. I don't know - you're the one who brought it up as a purpose "for everyone."
What does it look like?
I've just been trying to use your language to follow in your thought process as closely as possible. I fear - not different enough. What sort of "heart thing?" Something about helping others?
What if my bad-ass stone-masonry example of Stile doesn't want to help others? Let's say I don't want to hurt them... but I have no desire to help them either. I just want to make bad-ass stone masonry. If other's like it - I don't care. If other's hate it - I don't care. I just want to make it, and screw everyone else.
Are you saying that me being happy making bad-ass stone masonry, while not hurting anyone... is a bad thing?
Are you saying I should actually take time away from my bad-ass stone masonry to actively help others so that you feel better about a purpose you picked for yourself... and even though this makes ME incredibly unhappy (because I'm not focusing on bad-ass stone masonry...) this is my "ultimate purpose" because you and God like it better?That's messed up. -Hitler's attempt at having "blue-eyed blondes" being a single purpose for everyone - failed
-Church's attempt at having "believing in God" being a single purpose for everyone (Crusades) - failed
-Rome's attempt at having "the world be Roman" - failed
-North Korea's idea of "love the Leader" for everyone - failed
-Idea of "being gay is bad" for everyone - failed
-Idea of "transgender is stupid and assigned gender at birth" is for everyone - failed
-Idea that "640k RAM is plenty for everyone's computer" - failed
-Your idea of "sacrificial love" for everyone; but it doesn't work out for bad-ass stone masonry Stile - failedCan you name any single purpose "for everyone" that actually works "for everyone" other than "discover/create your own purpose?"

Luke does not have the women meeting Jesus. It is in Matthew's account and the disciples are told to go to Galilee. The curious thing in Luke is the women saw angels and an empty tomb but didn't meet Jesus. At least one account is wrong.

Yes, you’re correct. The message was delivered by angels.

That passage in Mark is about Jesus forecasting the destruction of the Temple as I have explained several times.

quote:

---

26 “Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. 27 Then he will send out the angels and gather the elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

---

Yes, but not an earthly rebellion. If you notice in Daniel 7 Jesus is given dominion over all nations. He is making it clear that it isn't just about the Jews but for the whole world, so it can't be just a local rebellion. In the Lord's Prayer it has the request that "Thy Kingdom Come on Earth as in Heaven". This is about Yahweh establishing a Kingdom of those that follow the message of Jesus and gathered from the 4 corners of the world.

quote:

---

That passage in Mark is about Jesus forecasting the destruction of the Temple as I have explained several times

---

You will note that despite being asked when the destruction will happen Jesus never actually mentions it in his reply - which leads me to conclude that it is not scheduled until the end of the events. Nevertheless as you can see the point is the fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy.

quote:

---

Yes, but not an earthly rebellion

---

Learn some history GDR. The Maccabean Revolt was earthly, successful and led to the creation of the Hasmonean Kingdom which was quite successful (eg conquering Edom) until the Romans moved in.

quote:

---

If you notice in Daniel 7 Jesus is given dominion over all nations.

---

Jesus is not in Daniel 7. He wasn’t even born until after the events. The “one like a son of man” is more likely meant to be Michael.

quote:

---

He is making it clear that it isn't just about the Jews but for the whole world, so it can't be just a local rebellion

---

Which is how the Jews get (and keep) the privileged place they are assured of. God intervenes, the enemies of the Jews are defeated, there’s a new order in the world where the Jews have a special place. Try Zechariah 14:

You keep bouncing back and forth between "I have evidence" and "I know I have no evidence." You're not communicating any coherent consistent position. What you know is that you have a truth that works for you, and I'm asking what more is it that you're seeking here, because if you're looking for agreement that your thinking is rational and evidence-based then you won't find it here. And EvC is not atypical when it comes to rational thinking. Let's say your observation is accurate, that the majority of assistance groups in your area are church-based. How is that evidence of God?And since you believe both good and bad things are evidence of God, why do you always list only good things? Why not just say, "Mass shootings, poverty, disease, earthquakes and hurricanes, to name only a few, are evidence of God?" You claimed that the ability to make a choice between good and evil was God-given and therefore evidence of God, but who chooses between life and being randomly shot dead, between health and disease, between solid ground and an earthquake, between calm and a hurricane?--Percy

I don't think "going with what you feel is true" is working very well for you: The effectiveness of indoctrination, especially of children, is well established. The durability of beliefs formed while young is also well established. The evolutionary basis for altruism is well established. There is a great deal of research: Google Scholar: evolution altruismThere is also a great deal of research on the evolution of empathy: evolution empathyBut let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is no evolutionary explanation for altruism or empathy. How are they evidence for God? You're just claiming that anything science can't yet explain is evidence of God. The further back you go in time and the less science knew the more things people attributed to God. You're just following in their footsteps.--Percy

That's true, and He was correct. The war happened with the temple being destroyed in 70AD. Also, again I'm not saying that Jesus had supernatural knowledge of the future. It was because He understood the political situation in Judea and was lobbying against violent revolution. Yes, it is a successful rebellion but not an earthly one. It was about establishing a Kingdom from Heaven for Earth of those who follow Jesus.Look at these verses from Mark 13.

quote:

---

14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it oes not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out.
16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak.
17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!
18 Pray that this will not take place in winter,
19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.

---

Verse 14 first references Daniel 7. It then goes on to advise the Judeans to flee to the mountains. If this is about the end of the world why go the mountains. If hwoever Jerusalem is under siege that sounds like as good a place as any.
Verse 15 and 16. If it's the end of the world why would you consider going back for anything?
Verse 17 and 18. If there is a war going on it would be hard on pregnant women and you wouldn't want to have to go to the mountains in winter. It doesn't make sense if this was about a cataclysmic end of the world.
Verse 19 Tells us that this will be the time of greatest tribulation in history and won't be equalled again. (I'm thinking that He didn't get the last part of that right.)

I'm not sure how someone can exist in an eternal fire so I'm going to say metaphor. If you want it to be an eternal fire then so be it. Hmm..., I put some thought into this and I think that you just may be right. I think rather than calling it a parable, it is really an analogy that shows what it is that God wants of us as humans. It isn't about getting our theology correct. it is about having a heart and mind that is not completely self focussed, but is about having enough compassion for others that you are prepared to act on that sense of compassion.Thanks for making the distinction.

quote:

---

That's true, and He was correct. The war happened with the temple being destroyed in 70AD. Also, again I'm not saying that Jesus had supernatural knowledge of the future. It was because He understood the political situation in Judea and was lobbying against violent revolution.

---

That’s not what it says. That’s why I quoted it.

quote:

---

Verse 14 first references Daniel 7. It then goes on to advise the Judeans to flee to the mountains. If this is about the end of the world why go the mountains. If hwoever Jerusalem is under siege that sounds like as good a place as any.

---

You obviously don’t understand the Jewish concept of the end times. Note of course that the “abomination” - pagan worship in the Temple - would be a massive provocation to the Jews. Jesus isn’t talking about just rebellion plots. Note also that it did not happen.As I pointed out the Jews did predict attacks on Jerusalem and much attendant suffering preceding the end times. But God would intervene - and Jesus alludes to that, to - and the Jews would come out on top. So there is reason to flee, but it’s not because of the coming end of the world (which isn’t destruction, simply the establishment of God’s rule - as in Daniel and Zechariah). But the end is still coming.Really, “it’s not about the end of the world because I only look about the parts before that” isn’t much of an argument. It’s certainly not an argument the someone who cares about the truth would make.