Persecuted Religions

[Thinking required]

I don't know if most people would resent the word sorry as a genuine apology.
But if the word "sorry" is used in a context that seems contentious or sarcastic.... chiding can follow.

I only know one way to use the word sorry and that is in sincerity.

 

[Thinking required]

Reincarnation is a doctrine of numerous religions. I don't know if it is a religion by itself. I do not think so.

That was not a point that I was trying to make. I simple was stating that what a persons believes, they will seek that. This is just natural for humans. I would not go to a nudist camp but people do.

 

[Thomas]

"not a follower"? Mark was not a apostle ...

No, he wasn't.

but could certain have heard Jesus speak.

He could have, then again, he might not ... we have no evidence that he did.

Mark is more connected to Paul in his travels.

Maybe. But John Mark (his proper name) left Paul's ministry when a young man, and was refused a place on Paul's second missionary journey. Tradition has it he was then picked up by Peter ... I go with tradition that John Mark was in Rome and heard Peter preach and Mark's is essentially Peter's gospel.

Only about half the book of Matthew contains what is said by Mark. Do you have any idea why they are referred to the synoptic Gospels.

Yes, because they contain common materials as well as their own. Unravelling the 'Synoptic Problem' is something to perplex scholars, but generally it looks like Matthew and Luke utilised Mark.

 

[Thomas]

A "scholar", well I don't hold scholars any different than anyone else.
[/quote[
Generally, they are more informed, their views based more on evidence and less on opinion.

Certainly might mean that they have read and studied, but it doesn't mean that they know the truth.

Doesn't mean they don't, doesn't mean non-scholars do ...

When I read words like these, they contain no factual evidence. I might have gone to the moon. No one knows except for me.

Just applying that rule to your statement about Mark – we don't know.

Why do Matthew and Luke quote Mark verbatim? Probably because they were copying his texts. Luke states at the outset he is drawing his gospel from sources. Most likely Matthew was as well. In Matthew and Luke's case, we know a source was Mark.

With Mark it's trickier – some argue he drew from an early Matthew – others from Peter – only they know.

 

[Thinking required]

He could have, then again, he might not ... we have no evidence that he did.

Agreed. I heard something the other day that I had never heard. The Book of Mark only contains 3 weeks of Jesus life. Haven't research it yet, but I found it interesting. I realize that the Book of Matthew contains both Mark's and Luke's information but also so much more.

 

[Thinking required]

Maybe. But John Mark (his proper name) left Paul's ministry when a young man, and was refused a place on Paul's second missionary journey. Tradition has it he was then picked up by Peter ... I go with tradition that John Mark was in Rome and heard Peter preach and Mark's is essentially Peter's gospel.

There are a few Scripture references that might disagree with you. I believe that the relationship between Paul and "John Mark" Referred mostly as Mark was healed

 

[Thinking required]

Why do Matthew and Luke quote Mark verbatim?

The stories are not "verbatim", are are differences. Ok, let's use some common sense here. Mark has 16 chapters, Luke 24 and Matthew 28. Where would Mark get his information? No one really knows. Luke tells us that he researched everything. Matthew lived with Jesus for those 3 years. Now who should have the most reliable information? Common sense says Matthew since he would have been at the feet of Jesus when Jesus said and did what he did. Would Matthew need Mark's information, no, he already knew it. Why would Matthew's book contain so much more information than the Book of Mark. Shouldn't it just be a copy of Mark? And then there is Luke who wrote the Book of Acts. Do you think this guy knew how to research. Everyone want to seem brilliant! The large question should be, what is each Book trying to tell us.

 

[wil]

but could certain have heard Jesus speak. Mark is more connected to Paul in his travels.

And wrote.his book 40 years later?

 

[TheLightWithin]

And wrote.his book 40 years later?

That's not so strange, people often write their memoirs late in life.
And of course then there weren't publisher and bookstores or book contracts to move up the pace.

 

[wil]

That's not so strange, people often write their memoirs late in life.
And of course then there weren't publisher and bookstores or book contracts to move up the pace.

Yeah...and they are memoirs of their lives not others... memories from 40 years prior if there were 10 folks present their would be 11 different stories... odds of being an eyewitness slim....and every lawyer and judge knows the jury, the masses, give way more cred to eyewitness testimony than deserved. Others treat it like gospel.

 

[Thinking required]

And wrote.his book 40 years later?

Why not, most of the books are written some 30+ years after Jesus death.

 

[moralorel]

I'm curious as to what you don't agree with in my wording. That is literally what they taught.

As far as reading the Bible that's all I can do. Putting on the armor of God is a real form of defense for me.

I knew I would pay for saying that. I felt like the wording made it sound like just keeping the Sabbath will guarantee a person for "the Resurrection". It's no big deal, especially seeing as I doubt that is what you meant.

 

[Faithfulservant]

I knew I would pay for saying that. I felt like the wording made it sound like just keeping the Sabbath will guarantee a person for "the Resurrection". It's no big deal, especially seeing as I doubt that is what you meant.

That is what that church taught. Not that I believe that

 

[wil]

I knew I would pay for saying that. I felt like the wording made it sound like just keeping the Sabbath will guarantee a person for "the Resurrection".

My kids scout troop was told if they DIDN'T make mass...they would be guaranteed to NOT make resurrection! But that only applied to the Catholics...the Protestants and Jew didn't have that rule.

They did have a workaround if we camped far enough away from a church they could get special dispemsation...otherwise it was pack up early Sunday morning and race back.

This seemed like abuse to me, because there was a self directed program the kids could have had, Scouts Own... a native American based non denominational interfaith service we did ourselves as scouts when I was a kid.

 

[moralorel]

My kids scout troop was told if they DIDN'T make mass...they would be guaranteed to NOT make resurrection! But that only applied to the Catholics...the Protestants and Jew didn't have that rule.

They did have a workaround if we camped far enough away from a church they could get special dispemsation...otherwise it was pack up early Sunday morning and race back.

This seemed like abuse to me, because there was a self directed program the kids could have had, Scouts Own... a native American based non denominational interfaith service we did ourselves as scouts when I was a kid.

South Park probably had it correct. We'll all be in Hell and some guy will let us know that the correct answer was "Mormon".

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Is there a teaching that this happened for Mary too, or is this strictly a Catholic tradition?

The ascension of Mary is a late legend. I can't exclude that this may be upheld by Orthodox denominations as well, but Protestants will reject it because it is not biblical.
But wasn't it rather Jesus who ascended?

 

[talib-al-kalim]

I don't recall using the word "spiritually". It has always been about truth, if that enters into the Spiritual world, then fine, but that is not where I was headed. Yes, I have challenged people as to why they believe in their spiritual book. I certainly don't mind being challenged about which book I believe. Helps me to reexamine why I believe what I believe.

I have a very different understanding of truth. You read the Bible, and you get your take - offs, and these are the truth for you.
I have read the entire Bible as well, and I get my take - offs as well, but some are partly different from yours. My nickname here is Arabic for "Student of the Word", better "Student of the Meaning". If I read the words or the deed of a prophet or a scholar, I ask : "What did it mean?", then "what does it mean to me? Is it relevant for me and now?" I don't discard anything easily, but I choose, and I hope to benefit from the best.

Religious "truth" is not absolute. It's related to our lives. Absolute truth is independent from us, and immutable, but we only know a small part of it.
God knows best.

 

[Thinking required]

Religious "truth" is not absolute. It's related to our lives. Absolute truth is independent from us, and immutable, but we only know a small part of it.
God knows best.

Allah knows best, yes stated 18 times in your Quran. Yes, religious truth is not truth, it's only want someone wants to believe.

 

[Thinking required]

I have read the entire Bible as well, and I get my take - offs as well, but some are partly different from yours.

I have read the entire Quran as well and I get my take-offs as well, but some are very different from your. Do you know that the word "Allah" is used just about 3000 times in the Quran along with thousands of singular and plural pronouns for him. I guess Muhammad needed to make sure everyone knew this was from Allah because there are no miracles. Unlike both of the previous "Books".

 

[Thinking required]

If I read the words or the deed of a prophet or a scholar, I ask : "What did it mean?", then "what does it mean to me?

So when you read the Bible and Jesus says: "I am the way, the life, and the Truth no one comes to the Father except through me" What did you glean from that statement by a prophet?