oldbadger wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 11:01 am
Hello @TRANSPONDER. I don't accept all of the claims for Jesus, nor all his words, but most of G-Mark seems to be the true account to me, less the Christian additions.
Very few researchers agree about everything or even much.
There is still a lot of debate (as there should be) but I think I can prove that Mark is Not the original but itself has a lot of editorial additions (as well as common material with Matthew not found in Luke - a sort of Matthew/Mark "Q" document) even though it reflects the original synoptic gospels, though Luke (heavily edited and amended though it is) still shows some features of the original gospel.
As relates to topic, I am inclined to thinking that Jesus existed, he had followers and Paul got his messianism from these followers. But I also think that Paul adapted the Apostolic teachings to suit Gentile Romans and the Greek Christian Gospel -writers went even further than Paul, in making Jesus God, targeting Jews and Judaism and getting Rome off the hook for executing Jesus.
theophile wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:19 am
My two cents on the discussion if interested: It's not a return to the law. Jesus was a law-breaker. It's more a return to what gave rise to the law in the first place, and what the law was always meant to achieve. (Along the lines of Transponder's position.)
The trick is rethinking what it means to fulfill the law. By which I mean, when Jesus says he came to fulfill the law, and not to abolish it, we should understand that as fulfilling the law's
original intention. What the law was
made to do in the first place and what it directs us toward. He does
not mean fulfill the law in the sense of obeying it...
So, for the sake of argument, if the original intention and direction of the law was to serve life, even by giving rights to slaves for instance (as hard as that sounds), then fulfilling the law ultimately means setting slaves free, and helping them out, since that is what it truly means to serve life. See what I mean?
Similarly, if the law is to serve life, which depends on trust, then it may outlaw adultery. But as we see from Jesus, fulfilling that law ultimately means not casting any stones, and letting the adulterer go, since that is the true fulfillment of the law's intent.
Or same with not working on the Sabbath. If that law was made to serve life, then fulfilling the law may mean breaking the law and working on the Sabbath (as Jesus also shows).
So it's clearly not a straight-up return to the law (there is no way to reconcile that with Jesus' actual actions). It is more precisely a return to what gave rise to the law in the first place, and what the law directs us towards.
Anyways, food for thought.
I agree and whether or not we agree on the finals of the theology, I concur that the Fulfilling of the law means the spirit, and that not a jot passes away is an intentional mislead. Sure the old Law intact with not a dot or scribble changed can be forgotten while Christians play nice, do good on the Sabbath and talk decent even if they do eat prawns. I think it's a crafty gloss of Matthew who evidently is much interested with the OT background of Christianity, revising the Law as in 'But I tell you' and in producing prophecies based on OT passages which he clearly doesn't understand. Like 'Rachel weeping for her children' was about the Assyrian smashing of the Northern kingdom, and nothing to do with a massacre in Bethlehem - which neither the historians nor the other gospel - writers know about, quite apart from the nativities are demonstrably fabrications.
I know...
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
the 'oh they didn't think it worth mentioning' excuse. Which wears damn thin when used to explain why John has no Transfiguration . I don't know where we will end up, but I look forward to further discussion of "My Pet Theory"
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
which I truly and honestly think is amply evidentially supported and consistent, and I am at a loos as to why no Bible scholars (even skeptic ones) seem to have twigged it.
Anyhow, I get it that fulfilling the law in the spirit by playing nice (including freeing slaves) would make perfect sense. Which only makes one wonder why God, giving Jesus his teleprompt material, didn't have him say 'Ye have read that ye may take slaves for life from the nations around ye; but I say that thou shouldn't notst own another person as property; and I say unto you that in the days to come, it will be seen as an evil thing,'.
But maybe God decided not to do that as it really gives the game away doesn't it?
![Angel O:)](./images/smilies/eusa_angel.gif)
It's such a good prophecy that it proves that God must be real and He can't provide convincing evidence like that, or it would abrogate Faith.