Did Matthew, Mark and Luke's communities

[Elijah John]

When the Gospel's were written, they were written for particular communities. These communities did not have access to the whole canon of the New Testament, at least not when their particular Gospels were first circulated.

So it is doubtful, for example, that the Markan community had access to the Gospel of John. Certainly not, at least, in the years between the Gospel of Mark, (roughly 60 AD) and the Gospel of John (around 90 AD).

For debate...were the prayers of Matthew, Mark and Luke's communities answered?

If so, why do you suppose they were? After all, it is unlikely they prayed "in Jesus name". (as that concept was introduced with the Gospel of John, some 30 years later)

If praying "in Jesus name" is essential to answered prayer, why didn't "Matthew", "Mark" or "Luke" teach it? Why didn't their Jesus teach it?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John

Firstly I did not say the graph is your position,

Actually, you did:

Enjoy your* reading of the improved "New Testament" reading, ie the 25 verses of the book of Jude.

.

And again, a misrepresentation.

*(bolded for emphasis)

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

Also, you have not addressed picking and choosing, (discerning rationality) of mining the Bible, vs. categorical, all or nothing acceptance of the Bible as a whole, or it's individual books in particular.

The former seems a thoughtful approach, the latter? Somewhat robotic.

Like Jesus was, huh?

Did he pick and choose, was he mining the Bible?

If so, in what way? If not, why not?

Something to think about, EJ.

Actually he did, "you have heard it said, but I say..." Regarding divorce, ritual purity law and other matters. And also blood sacrifice, when he said "I desire mercy not sacrifice".

Right, but as I asked, "in what way?"

Firstly, as one sent by God, and as one God commanded us to"Listen to..."

In other words, as one with the full authority to do and say what he did. You and I are not in that position.

Secondly, not by rejecting anything in the Tanakh or saying it did not come from God, but by bringing out its full meaning or intention.

In doing so he was light years away from being "Somewhat robotic".

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

Also, you have not addressed picking and choosing, (discerning rationality) of mining the Bible, vs. categorical, all or nothing acceptance of the Bible as a whole, or it's individual books in particular.

The former seems a thoughtful approach, the latter? Somewhat robotic.

Like Jesus was, huh?

Did he pick and choose, was he mining the Bible?

If so, in what way? If not, why not?

Something to think about, EJ.

Actually he did, "you have heard it said, but I say..." Regarding divorce, ritual purity law and other matters. And also blood sacrifice, when he said "I desire mercy not sacrifice".

Right, but as I asked, "in what way?"

Firstly, as one sent by God, and as one God commanded us to"Listen to..."

In other words, as one with the full authority to do and say what he did. You and I are not in that position.

But aren't we supposed to imitate Christ? Yes, we believe that he had authority, but also delegated it. "Greater things" and all that...Or does that only apply to things like walking on water, and not using our God-given common sense and brains.

Also, Jews feel that way about Moses, that he was the one who had full authority. And the author of Proverbs says not to add to God's word, every New Testament writer has done so....at least in the minds of the compilers of the Canon. But in fairness to the NT writers, there is little evidence that they considered their own writings "Sacred Scripture"...

Secondly, not by rejecting anything in the Tanakh or saying it did not come from God, but by bringing out its full meaning or intention.

Jesus forbade what Moses allowed. (divorce) I'm sure there are other examples as well.

In doing so he was light years away from being "Somewhat robotic".

I'm not convinced that Jesus was as robotic as some of his followers. I was thinking more of them then of him when I used the term. Jesus had creative, thoughtful interpretations of the Torah, some of his followers? Not so much. Instead many have the attitude "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it", ignoring the fact that there are more than a few disturbing passages that they conveniently ignore. (Exodus 21.20-21 comes to mind, along with Paul's prohibition of women speaking in Church.)

Many "Bible thumpers" speak as though the Bible dropped in-tact, from Heaven right into their laps.

From "God's lips to your ears" is the expression? God speaks to very few from the clouds anymore, He hasn't seemed to have done so since the days of Paul and the NT authors.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John

Firstly I did not say the graph is your position,

Actually, you did:

Enjoy your* reading of the improved "New Testament" reading, ie the 25 verses of the book of Jude.

.

And again, a misrepresentation.

*(bolded for emphasis)

Actually I didn't I said I wish you enjoy your reading, and refered to Jude. I did not mention my graph. Do you not enjoy reading Jude? If not, don't read it.

Enjoy YOUR day and YOUR reading (whatever verses the bible you may deem as acceptable) and feel free to ignore MY graphs, my illustrations, indeed feel free to ignore my entire opinion while you're doing both if that be your pleasure.



JW

[tam]

No, I'd boil it and/or strain it through the filter of God-given Reason and common sense.

I agree, boiling and filtering would be better than drinking from places where the water has been polluted by all manner of impurities being dumped and added into it. But you're still drinking from the polluted steam. How do you know your 'filtering and boiling' is working well enough to catch and strain out every impurity? Or that your filter has not itself been rendered impure?



Instead, why not drink pure water straight from the source?




"Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink."



**

As well, the caption in the post above mine (which I will quote here) is also incorrect. The caption reads:

"If you want to listen to God, you must read and understand the Bible."


That is incorrect.

If you want to listen to God, you must listen to His Son.


"This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him." Luke 9:35



Peace to you both,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 17 by Elijah John]

No, I'd boil it and/or strain it through the filter of God-given Reason and common sense.

In other words, spit out whatever in scripture offends the sensibilities.

And question or sow doubt about so much, including Jesus as being the Messiah and as rising from the dead.

That's what comes from using the wrong filter.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 25 by tam]

As well, the caption in the post above mine (which I will quote here) is also incorrect. The caption reads:

"If you want to listen to God, you must read and understand the Bible."

That is incorrect.

"This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him." Luke 9:35

If you want to listen to God, you must listen to His Son.

Indeed.

John 10:

3 The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.

5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.

Mark 4:23

If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.

[Elijah John]

Peace to you EJ,

As to whether or not anyone's prayers were answered, that would be up to God. God is not obligated to answer the prayers of someone who bypasses His Son. Just as Pharaoh was not obligated to hear anyone who attempted to bypass Joseph, whom Pharaoh had placed in charge over all his kingdom. Just as no one could enter the Most Holy Place except through the Holy Place (unless they were thieves and robbers).

The one praying might be approaching in love, trying to do right, might be sincere but simply mistaken... and so is not deliberately going against God's directions and will correct himself as soon as he learns better.

The picture you paint of YHVH Elohim, the Father, does Him a disservice. He his not as aloof as you suppose. Consider Psalm 145.18:

YHVH is close to all who call on him in truth.

Some translations say "from the heart" some say "with sincerity".

So much for the unapproachable gulf, chasm. Indeed, "everyone who calls upon the name of YHVH will be delivered".

No Jesus involved. No Jesus to be bypassed. YHVH invites direct approach. Jesus taught this as well, in contradiction to the Temple, Jesus too, taught direct access to the Father. AND in contradiction to "John" and Paul who followed. There is no "in Jesus name we pray" clause in the Lord's prayer.

But how much more so will we be heard if we are listening to His Son and doing as that Son directed, and approaching God and ask in the name of His Son? (including praying for the things that Son taught us to pray for: the Kingdom to come; God's name to be Holy; God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven; forgiveness for our sins as we forgive others; to receive our daily bread; to be protected from the evil one?)

See above.

The portion of your quote which I bolded, Tammy, is a Johnninne notion you have introduced to the petitions of the Lord's prayer. Something that the Synoptic Yahshua or Matthew did not teach. Indeed, Yahshua in the Lord's prayer teaches direct, not mediated access.

Peace to you, Tammy, as well.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 17 by Elijah John]

No, I'd boil it and/or strain it through the filter of God-given Reason and common sense.

In other words, spit out whatever in scripture offends the sensibilities.

That's NOT what I said. And speaking of the "wrong filter" you mean Evangelical pastors, and the RCC and it's Trinitarian Protestant offshoots who have been misleading us for centuries with this "Jesus is God" and he "died to 'pay for' our sins" stuff?

As though the merciful Father needs to be appeased with blood? (Psalm 50.12-13)

[tam]

Peace to you EJ,

Peace to you EJ,

As to whether or not anyone's prayers were answered, that would be up to God. God is not obligated to answer the prayers of someone who bypasses His Son. Just as Pharaoh was not obligated to hear anyone who attempted to bypass Joseph, whom Pharaoh had placed in charge over all his kingdom. Just as no one could enter the Most Holy Place except through the Holy Place (unless they were thieves and robbers).

The one praying might be approaching in love, trying to do right, might be sincere but simply mistaken... and so is not deliberately going against God's directions and will correct himself as soon as he learns better.

The picture you paint of YHVH Elohim, the Father, does Him a disservice. He his not as aloof as you suppose.

I do not suppose the Father (Jahveh) to be aloof. (Nor is it me who shows the Father as the Father truly is; but rather it is His Son who does this.)

That being said, is there something I said that is untrue? If not, then what is there in my quote for you to take issue with?

Is it not up to God whose prayers are answered? Is God obligated to hear the prayers of anyone who chooses to bypass His Son? Could a person have entered the Most Holy Place in the Temple without passing through the Holy Place? Was it not God who gave specific instructions on how the temple should be constructed?

Consider Psalm 145.18:

YHVH is close to all who call on him in truth.

Some translations say "from the heart" some say "with sincerity".

Just for your own interest, the following link shows the meaning of the word used, as well as the frequency of how it is translated a particular way:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... H571&t=KJV

Regardless, there is still a condition attached yes? It is not just knowing or using His name. Did not false prophets and false priests preach or prophesy in His name, but falsely?

So then it is like what Christ said,

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven.Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.’ Matthew 7:21-23

Jesus taught this as well, in contradiction to the Temple, Jesus too, taught direct access to the Father. AND in contradiction to "John" and Paul who followed. There is no "in Jesus name we pray" clause in the Lord's prayer.

But how much more so will we be heard if we are listening to His Son and doing as that Son directed, and approaching God and ask in the name of His Son? (including praying for the things that Son taught us to pray for: the Kingdom to come; God's name to be Holy; God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven; forgiveness for our sins as we forgive others; to receive our daily bread; to be protected from the evil one?)

See above.

The portion of your quote which I bolded, Tammy, is a Johnninne notion you have introduced to the petitions of the Lord's prayer. Something that the Synoptic Yahshua or Matthew did not teach. Indeed, Yahshua in the Lord's prayer teaches direct, not mediated access.

Peace to you, Tammy, as well.

Do you say 'Amen' at the end of your prayers, EJ? Did Christ mention that in His teaching prayer?

Rev 3:14



May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear, and may anyone who thirsts hear and come, as the Spirit and the Bride say to you, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life."



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy