*
+
/ Re: To Aaron.
Moses verses Jesus / 13Sept2000 /
/ Ngz: alt.religion.deism,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy
/
.
>> "G.
R. Gaudreau" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Matt.
16:27. For the Son of man is about to come in the glory of his
>> Father
with his angels, and then he will render to each according
>> to his
doings. 28. Verily I say unto you, There are some of those
>> standing
here that shall not taste of death at all until they shall
>> have
seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
>>
>> Jesus
is reported as saying that he was about to come 1) with
>> angels,
2) with a reward for all men for their doings and 3) in his
>> kingdom.
He was supposed to do that before some of his immediate
>> disciples
died. He obviously hasn't come back, so that would mean
>> that
he prophesied falsely.
.
> On 31Aug2000
Rev Peter <[email protected]> wrote: I noticed
> that
Aaron, was unable to offer an rebuttal; but I am sure in his tiny
> little
mind that he considers that he sucessfully refuted him. So
> let's
ask him again. Tell us Aaron, did Jesus prophesied falsely?
> According
to the Torah, he did: Deut.18:21-22, "And you may say in
> your
heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord God has not
> spoken?'
When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing
> does
not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord
> has not
spoken ..."
> By Moses'
measurement, Jesus cannot be the "Lord". peace - Rev Peter
.
textman
answers the unbelievers: Obviously what we have here is a
willful
incapacity to read and understand the Word of God. Allow me
then to
try and shed some much needed light upon this confusing matter.
Let us
begin by recognizing that the Gospel of Matthew is a deliberate
revision
of the original Gospel of Mark and Peter. If this is so, then
perhaps
our dilemma can be resolved by recourse to that first gospel?
Let us
see if this is indeed the case ...
.
And
he said to them, 'I tell you the truth, there are some standing
here who
will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come
with power.'
Now after six days Jesus took with him Peter, James,
and John
and led them alone up a high mountain privately. He was
transfigured
before them, and his clothes became radiantly white,
more than
any launderer in the world could bleach them. There also
appeared
before them Elijah and Moses, and they were talking with
Jesus.
Then Peter said to Jesus, 'Rabbi, it is good for us to be here.
Let us
make three shelters, one for you, one for Moses, and one for
Elijah.'
(For they were afraid and he did not know what to say.) Then
a cloud
surrounded them, and a voice came from the cloud, 'This is
my one
dear Son. Listen to him!' -- Mk 9:1-7/NETbible
.
Well!
... It certainly looks to me like Jesus prophesied truly.
Accordingly,
by Moses' measurement, Jesus is, in fact, a true prophet.
.
Geez,
what a shocker, eh?
.
- the one who is not really shocked - ttextman ;>
x
+
/ Subject >
Re: To Aaron. Moses verses Jesus/2 / 16Sept2000 /
/ Ngz: alt.religion.deism,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy
/
.
>> textman
answers the unbelievers: Obviously what we have here
>> is a
willful incapacity to read and understand the Word of God.
.
> On 15Sept
Rev Peter <[email protected]> replies:
> It isn't
the word of a god, it is the words of scribes.
.
textman
answers: Dear RevP, some of the words are undoubtedly
the uninspired
words of scribes inserted into the text in some feeble
attempt
to improve upon the original uncorrupted texts; but even
so, the
entire Christian tradition is firm upon the point that these
particular
books are somehow divinely inspired. Therefore we are
not in
error in referring to the Holy Bible as the Word of God.
.
> Your
incapacity to realize this only proves that you are
> essentially
a sophist.
.
I
don't think so, RevP. A sophist believes in nothing (except perhaps
money),
and therefore plays with words solely for their effect upon
the listener.
In other words, a sophist cares nothing for the truth of
things,
and so is essentially a nihilist. It seems to me, therefore,
that a
person without faith (such as yourself) is far more likely to
be a sophist
than a person of faith.
.
> Try proving
that the scribes who wrote these 'scriptures' were
> telling
the truth.
.
The
only people who require "proof" of the truth of scripture are
those who
have already made up their minds that their is no truth
in the
scriptures.
.
>> Allow
me then to try and shed some much needed light upon this
>> confusing
matter.
.
> There
is no confusion, it is a FACT that the bible is written by men;
.
By
men, women, *and* the Spirit of Truth.
.
> who could
not even agree on the basics.
.
They
all agree that God exists, and cares enough about humankind
to become
personally involved with their lives. Accordingly, I'd say
that they
*do* agree at least upon the basics.
.
>> Let
us begin by recognizing that the Gospel of Matthew is a
>> deliberate
revision of the original Gospel of Mark and Peter.
.
> Sophism.
.
Biblical
science and scholarship.
.
> Try proving
that the gospel according to Mark, was written by a
> man named
Mark? There is no internal evidence to its authorship.
.
It's
true that *most* of the evidence regarding authorship comes
from outside
sources, but there are also a few hints and clues
within
the text that suggest that the first gospel was a collaborative
effort
by Mark and Peter.
.
>> If this
is so,
.
> "IF",
"if', IT IS NOT SO. You are making an assertion without
> any evidence.
.
The
evidence that Mt used Mk is all there in the text of Mt.
.
>> then
perhaps our dilemma can be resolved by recourse to
>> that
first gospel?
.
> Can you
prove that there was no previous gospels which have been
> lost
to time? If not, than you cannot say that Mark's is the
> first
gospel.
.
The
"proof" that there were no gospels prior to Mk is the fact that no
physical
evidence of such supposed documents exists. It is unreasonable
to first
postulate the existence of something for which there is no
evidence,
and then go on to claim that these alleged documents were
"lost to
time". In this case Occam's Razor cuts your throat.
.
>> Let
us see if this is indeed the case ...
>> <snip
quote for brevity> -- Mk 9:1-7/NETbible
>> Well!
... It certainly looks to me like Jesus prophesied truly.
.
> Your
explanation makes Jesus a fool; he talks about death, and six
> days
later fulfills it. Let's look at the prophecy again, this time
> with
Matthew's complete prophecy:
.
> Matt.
16;27-28, "27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory
> of His
Father and His angels; and will recompense every man according
> to his
deeds. 28 Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are
> standing
here *who shall NOT taste death* until they see the Son of
> Man coming
in his kingdom."
.
> What
are the elements of this prophecy: 1) the second coming
> 2) the
last judgement 3) rewards and punishments
> 4) Jesus'
kingdom on earth
.
> *WHEN:
before his apostles tasted death. Well textman, they're dead.
.
What
is clear to me is that Matthew has added to Mark's prophecy such
that we
end up with not one prophecy, but two: an end-times prophecy
(v.27)
which is still on the way, and a short-term prophecy (v.28)
which was
fulfilled at the Transfiguration.
.
Moreover,
all the elements of both prophecies (with the exception of
'rewards
and punishments' -> ie. the Matthean addition) were fulfilled
during
the Transfiguration episode:
.
"glory
of His Father" -> "His face shone like the sun, and his
clothes
became white as light." (Mt 17:2)
.
"His
angels" -> "Then Moses and Elijah also appeared to them,
talking
with him." (Mt 17:3)
.
"some
of those who are standing here" -> "Jesus took with him
Peter and
James and John." (Mt 17:1)
.
"who
will not taste death before they see" -> "And after six
days" (Mt
17:1)
.
"Son
of Man coming in his kingdom." -> "a bright cloud surrounded
them, and
a voice from the cloud said, 'This is my one dear Son,
in whom
I take great delight. Listen to him!'" (Mt 17:5)
.
>> Accordingly,
by Moses' measurement, Jesus is, in fact, a
>> true
prophet.
.
> You have
demonstrated an example of sophism. Your apologetic
> makes
jesus look like a fool.
.
That's
your (uninformed) opinion. Naturally, I disagree with
your faithless
and cynical conclusions.
.
> In reality,
Jesus promised to return, establish his kingdom, carry
> out the
last judgement, and reward his faithful -- none of that
> was accomplished.
.
Your
interpretation is both skewed and simplistic; based not
so much
upon the texts as upon your biased reading of them.
Accordingly,
a faithful reading of the passage shows us that
your conclusion
that "none of that was accomplished" is not
only wrong,
but also wrong-headed.
.
> According
to the measure of Moses; Jesus, is in fact, a false prophet.
.
According
to the measure of Moses; Jesus is, in fact, a true prophet!
.
> "The
ignorance you observe is based on the mindless repetition of
> the LABEL
put on that collection of books, i.e. that it is the "Word of
> God".
Once you accepts that assertion as fact, you get involved in
> an endless
effort to defend every word, every statement, every fable
> contained
in those books." -- Libertarius
.
Since
that is obviously not the case with the cyber-prophet, it is
apparent
that Libertarius' observation applies only to Fundy extremists
who uphold
the unbiblical dogma of inerrancy. ... Nice try though.
.
> -- peace,
Rev Peter -- http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
> "The
very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common.
> Instead
of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the
> facts
to fit their views ..." -- Dr. Who
.
Yes, and in this case, you're the one who's altering the facts to
fit your
preconceived and biased views. Which only leaves us with
one remaining
question: Are you very powerful or very stupid?
.
- the one whose views fit the facts - ttextman ;>
x
+
/ Subject >
Re: To Aaron. Moses verses Jesus/3 / 16Sept2000 /
/ Ngz: alt.religion.deism,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy
/
.
>> textman wrote:
<big snip> Well! ... It certainly looks to me like
>> Jesus prophesied
truly. Accordingly, by Moses' measurement, Jesus
>> is, in fact, a
true prophet. Geez, what a shocker, eh?
.
> On 14Sept "G. R.
Gaudreau" <[email protected]> replied: No,
> I'm not at all
shocked, Textman. You've simply begged a different
> question than Aaron
did. How do you know that "the Gospel of Matthew
> is a deliberate
revision of the original Gospel of Mark and Peter?"
> Don't forget now,
it's not what you believe, but what you KNOW,
> i.e., what you
can prove, that I'm looking for.
.
textman answers:
Dear GR, I'm very tempted to simply say that it ought
to be perfectly obvious
that the Gospel of Matthew is a midrashic
revision and expansion
of the original 'primitive' Gospel, but
apparently that is
not the case here. So how do I know that Mt made
use of Mk? Because
I've done my homework, that's how. If it's "proof"
you want, I suggest
you consult the commentaries. There are many good
ones on both Mt and
Mk that address various aspects of this matter. ...
Or would you like
me to post a few hundred relevant pages from the
available commentaries?
.
But before
we are forced to such a drastic measures, let us first
make an initial observation
for the benefit of those not privy to the
mountains of secondary
literature relating to this question. Now anyone
studying the four
gospels with an eye on how they relate to each other
cannot help but notice
that there are many points of contact and
divergence among
the four gospels. Obviously, these interrelationships
are both profound
and complex. Indeed, the complexity is such that
most scholars are
frankly baffled; and because of unfounded prior
assumptions, are
forced to ludicrous measures (eg. Q) in order to
"explain" the precise
nature of these relationships. About the only
thing that most scholars
can agree upon is that Mark was the first to
be written. Some
will go the next step and acknowledge that Mt came
second; and one reason
for this is that Mt can be profitably studied
without recourse
to John and Luke, but *cannot* be studied without
constant reference
to Mk. Now Mk owes nothing to Mt, but Mt owes a
great deal (approximately
60%) to Mk. And this is a fact of great
significance, which
goes a long way in demonstrating Matthew's
dependence upon the
text of Mk.
.
> And btw, here's
another question for you, o instructor of the
> unlearned: Why
would Jesus say that some standing there would
> not taste death
if the event would happen SIX DAYS LATER?
.
Because he
had a flair for the dramatic?
.
> That makes Jesus
look like an idiot, doesn't it?
.
Only to the
spiritually blind.
.
>> - the one who
is not really shocked - textman ;>
.
> The one who is
really not surprised at the crap Xians will
> come up with to
justify their beliefs. G.R. Gaudreau ;>
.
Your taste
buds must have a strong liking for crap, GR; else why
would you waste so
much time in 'Xian' ngz, instead of going to
alt.atheism, where
you could find many of those with a mindset
like unto yours?
.
- one who
wonders what the invaders are *really* after - textman ;>
x
+
/ Subject >
Re: To Aaron. Moses verses Jesus/4 / 16Sept2000 /
/ Ngz: alt.religion.deism,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy
/
.
>> textman previously
wrote: <big snip> Well! ... It certainly
>> looks to me like
Jesus prophesied truly. Accordingly, by
>> Moses' measurement,
Jesus is, in fact, a true prophet.
.
> On 14Sept "Mike
Avery" <[email protected]> replied:
> There are parables
in the NT and some of the miracles
> mentioned therein
are parables, allegories if you wish.
.
textman answers:
Dear Mike, I tend to agree. In fact, I am of the
opinion that this
particular pericope functions on many levels at the
same time (historical,
symbolic, etc); which only goes to show that
unless we are willing
to pay attention to the text we will never be
able to really understand
it.
.
> You gave your
interpretation of the Transfiguration,
.
Actually,
Mike, I only gave a very small part of my interpretation
of this immensely
rich and dense passage.
.
> I will give this
one.
> There were Moses,
Isaiah and Jesus. The Law, the Prophet and Jesus.
.
I'm sorry,
you already lost me. According to Jewish tradition "the
Prophet" is none
other than Moses himself. Next to him, the prophet
with the highest
status (if I may put it that way) is not Isaiah,
but rather Elijah.
.
> Three masters.
'You cannot follow three masters'.
.
I believe
the biblical phrase is: 'You cannot follow *two* masters'.
.
> Got to chose one.
Two of them disappeared. Peter had learned
> another good lesson.
.
The lesson
he learned was that Moses and Elijah are friends of Jesus.
.
> Poor guy could
never make out what Jesus meant.
.
Well, what
can you expect from a poor, ignorant, and illiterate
fisherman? At least
he wasn't a *sophist* (like Rev Peter).
.
> You could replace
Isaiah with Mahomet. You would get the
> same result. :-)
.
I sincerely
doubt it!
.
> What are miracles
to you are for me allegories.
.
Your observation
is largely irrelevant, Mike. Whether the
Transfiguration
is historical fact or literary invention does not
matter to the question
of whether or not Jesus is a true prophet
according to Moses'
measurement. As far as the text itself is
concerned, Jesus
made a prophesy which later came about as stated.
End of story.
.
- the one who measures - textman ;>
x
More Moses
verses
Jesus
textman
*