Spirituality
23 Jun 07
24 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you search it and any of Pauls writings for similarities between both of them and the gospels of Mark and Matthew.
From what little I have seen of that gospel I'd disagree with you,
it may be closer to what you want Jesus to have said, but that is as
far as you can really take it.
Kelly
you would be really surprised.
Btw. just fyi its the only gospel that says who wrote it.
24 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompWe can go over the differences if you want to pick one or two important
If you search it and any of Pauls writings for similarities between both of them and the gospels of Mark and Matthew.
you would be really surprised.
Btw. just fyi its the only gospel that says who wrote it.
ones as you deem them important. With regard to who wrote them,
that isn't an issue that is important to me, it may be to you.
Kelly
24 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWho wrote them is at once the singular most important fact about them. Were they wriiten by people that had only second hand knowlege or as in Thomas' case an eye witness.
We can go over the differences if you want to pick one or two important
ones as you deem them important. With regard to who wrote them,
that isn't an issue that is important to me, it may be to you.
Kelly
and oh, btw Who left Thomas out of the New Testament, anyway?
edit: It seems to me the people that picked out the books for the New Testament, did A lot of censorship , and since the Roman Empire did play a role in the picking and choosing, there seems no reason to believe the bible has the story straight.
25 Jun 07
4 edits
Originally posted by frogstompI'm content with those that are credited with the writing of the
Who wrote them is at once the singular most important fact about them. Were they wriiten by people that had only second hand knowlege or as in Thomas' case an eye witness.
and oh, btw Who left Thomas out of the New Testament, anyway?
edit: It seems to me the people that picked out the books for the New Testament, did ...[text shortened]... e picking and choosing, there seems no reason to believe the bible has the story straight.
four gospels at this time. If you have some question to that, okay we
can address that, but since as I have pointed out at the moment I am
content with the authorship I'm also content to judge other books
against those that are currently held as scripture.
With regard to Thomas name being used, like the names of other
people who are assigned authorship to the other books, the names
themselves do not automatically make or break their authority or
truthfulness when it comes to the works being scripture or not.
I also feel that you credit Roman Empire with to much power when it
comes to what is and isn’t in scripture, as books like "Foxes book of
Martyrs" shows there where more than a few scriptures that were not
influenced by the Rome for good or not.
So unless you have content you want to address, simply showing me
that the names are the same as people within the four gospels that
are currently accepted. I'm at a loss as to what your origional
complaint still is.
Kelly
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJaySorry if I made you think I was complaining, as I'm not. All I'm doing is stating the fact that that nothing in the accepted Gospels attest to who wrote them.
I'm content with those that are credited with the writing of the
four gospels at this time. If you have some question to that, okay we
can address that, but since as I have pointed out at the moment I am
content with the authorship I'm also content to judge other books
against those that are currently held as scripture.
With regard to Thomas name bei ...[text shortened]... are currently accepted. I'm at a loss as to what your origional
complaint still is.
Kelly
However the Gospel of Thomas does :
"These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded."
But , I digress from my main point , which is the footings that hold the foundation of the religion are shakey, since the old testament has too many of the older Sumerian Myths rearanged to suit the image of the god of the israelites.
El was a bull god from Canaan , the father of Baal , and the husband of Asteroth. El is also the god of Genesis.
26 Jun 07
Originally posted by StarrmanResponding to you both: I have read The Unbearable Lightness of Being. It’s been some time, though.
I was just thinking that. I do believe, thinking upon it, that vistesd and I have discussed the notion of the weight of the soul before.
There is a clear pun in that title.
I seem to recall Kundera expressing through his characters existential angst over a metaphysically ungrounded existence. I would venture to say that it is the angst that is the malady (albeit a natural one), rather than the ungroundedness.
27 Jun 07
Originally posted by frogstompI'm not an expert in language, but simply seeing that does not mean
Sorry if I made you think I was complaining, as I'm not. All I'm doing is stating the fact that that nothing in the accepted Gospels attest to who wrote them.
However the Gospel of Thomas does :
"These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded."
But , I digress from my main point , which is ...[text shortened]... , the father of Baal , and the husband of Asteroth. El is also the god of Genesis.
that the OT isn't real. The languages today in the middle east hold
many of the same words that do and do not always carry the same
exact meaning. Simply seeing El used else where in other peoples
beliefs their god does not mean that the one and only God in the
OT wouldn't be described by that usage when He was written about
had the same spelling used to indentify him if that were the proper
way to write God for them at the time. God as He revealed Himself
to them in the OT took on many names each time He did something
they were learning about Him then, spelling and language would
simply be used as it was common for the that day.
Kelly
27 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayDon't you at least find it odd that He chose a name that not only was the name of the head god of Canaan , but also meant OX GOAD in Israelite pictographs?
I'm not an expert in language, but simply seeing that does not mean
that the OT isn't real. The languages today in the middle east hold
many of the same words that do and do not always carry the same
exact meaning. Simply seeing El used else where in other peoples
beliefs their god does not mean that the one and only God in the
OT wouldn't be described ...[text shortened]... m then, spelling and language would
simply be used as it was common for the that day.
Kelly
29 Jun 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't think from man's point of view we are going to get a sure
The building is very high; look down & the foundations are covered in fog.
What would constitute a solid foundation for a religion?
foundation for religion ever, it is ever going to be faith; however,
I am content that Jesus Christ is my sure foundation and even
in faith I'd much rather have Him than the logic of those that
think they know.
Kelly