Persecuted Religions

[Thinking required]

But I won't start burning down clinics or shooting medics by listening to Christians' views about abortion

That really was beneath you. A true Christian would never do that. But people who have been burned by something that was supposed to be Christian will talk like this. How about Muhammad killing Jews who would not agree with him.

 

[Thinking required]

Ideologies need actors. "Views don't kill, people do", as it were.

Then why are guns blamed for killing people. So H did not have a view for what the world should look like?

 

[Cino]

That really was beneath you. A true Christian would never do that. But people who have been burned by something that was supposed to be Christian will talk like this. How about Muhammad killing Jews who would not agree with him.

I should have picked a different example, but I was tired, it was late. I think my point did not get across.

Good morning! I have slept now, coffee is coming up next

Let me rephrase:

"I won't start beheading aristocrats in the public square just by listening to a French person talk about the Revolution".

Ideologies need actors.

"Ideas don't kill, people do".

(The latter is a statement you made in a couple of other threads, which I generally agree with).

 

[Cino]

Then why are guns blamed for killing people. So H did not have a view for what the world should look like?

Guns are not ideas, but objects, tools.

There are several ideologies centered around guns, though. It's a circular situation, because only the guns are talked about, when the ideologies, and their actors in particular, should be addressed.

My perspective, from outside of the US.

 

[Thomas]

If four of use on this forum go to a play and then write about what we saw, how similar do you think the stories would be.

To be precise, what you should say is one of us goes to see the play, and three others collect stories from others who have seen the play ...

But that aside ...

I'd think there were similarities – we could identify that they've seen the same play – but there would be differences, and that's exactly what you've got in the Gospels, as each scribe is making 'his' point.

But an astute policeman would also note significant – and sometimes exact – similarities, which would suggest that someone's been comparing notes or cribbing.

 

[Thomas]

Interesting, you need to check your sources.

I think you're missing the point.

Yes some 90% of Mark is found in Matthew, but is all of that directly quoted.

No, Matthew's adapted it to his own situation and requirement.

Some of Jesus' says are not "word for word". look at the parable of the Sower in both texts.

And yet a misquote of Isaiah is exactly the same in all three, which is so highly unlikely, it can only be that two copied from the same source without double-checking the reference.

Matthew should have double quoted Mark if he copied from Mark ...

Not if he's using Mark as his source, of course not.

The point remains, if Matthew was an eye-witness, why is he so dependent on someone who was not? It's clear Matthew actually had a copy of Mark in front of him, and in some cases copied it word for word. Same with Luke. Common-sense says Matthew was not the disciple – not the Matthew of the Twelve, at least. He might have been a follower.

It may be that Matthew had the Hebrew materials Papias mentions (which are lost), a sayings or discourse document, and wove this into Mark's story. Neither Matthew nor Luke challenge Mark's chronology, and yet John's is different, and more likely the more accurate. If the scribe of 'John' was not the disciple, I believe him to be a disciple of the disciple. as Papias and Polycarp knew John, and neither mention a scribe, it's more likely that John's Gospel is a first-hand account.

You are welcome to believe what the tradition asserts – the Church is more circumspect – I believe Matthew might well have had the lost 'Hebrew Gospel' and wove that onto Mark.

I believe Mark writes Peter's testimony, but the Church doesn't insist on that, again it's Papias' telling.

I believe Luke spoke to whoever he could, including Mary the mother of Jesus

And I believe John was the disciple.

+++

Again, all my beliefs. Strong – but not inconclusive – evidence to allow I'm right. Not enough evidence to tell me I'm wrong.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

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?

To come back into discussion: how do you receive this passage? What does it mean to you and your life?