God's Truth
New member
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
ECT Forgiving and Forgiveness
- Thread starter Psalmist
- Start date
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
God's Truth
New member
God's Truth
New member
Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
Gros has no idea what Jesus' teachings are. What does that say?
Gros has no idea what Jesus' teachings are. What does that say?
And here is one of those "teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" - Matthew 23:
1. Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2. Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Now watch you twist to your own destruction as to your credibility once more.
God's Truth
New member
The temple has been destroyed and there are no more pharisees. JUST AS JESUS SAID WILL HAPPEN.
What is wrong with you? Think about it.
You sound just like my slow friend when I point out to him that his notion of doing this, that, the other "in order to get closer to God" is ignorance.
He will then utter one misunderstanding or another of his and then add "What is wrong with you? Think about it."
He; the worker bee ever in ignorance of Galatians, actually believes he has said something sound.
All you have said in your consistent ignorance is that the Temple was destroyed, and as a result, the Matthew 23/Matthew 28 command is impossible to obey - that Jesus must have been clueless to have given such a command.
That, after 40 years of their following it, would not be able to be followed.
That, after 40 years of being followed by those He gave that commandment to, as well as by those they were commanded by Him to teach them the same, they had no choice but to disobey His commandment.
But in your ignorance, you will not see that is what you are saying. You will conclude I am saying that.
You, woman, have, not a screw loose, rather, the entire house that is your doctrine, is... loose.
God's Truth
New member
I couldn't care any less about your "slow friend."
Very "Christian" of you.
...But the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed during the Jewish-Roman War of 70 A.D.
Mark was quite aware of what happened.
None of the gospels were written contemporary with Jesus' life.
IMJerusha
New member
Grosnick, the book of Romans was to the Church at Rome. Are you in the Church at Rome? Come on! When Paul wrote to Timothy that all Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, etc., what Scripture do you think he was referring to? He wasn't talking about New Testament. To take bits and pieces of what we want out of Scripture is wrong.
God's Truth
New member
The temple was not destroyed when Mark wrote his book.
Is there anyone that you know of that thinks the books were written while Jesus was on earth? I have not heard of such a concept before.
Where do you see that? Since Mark has Jesus "predicting" the destruction of the Temple it would follow that his gospel was written shortly after the Roman Jewish War of 70 AD.
Believe it or not, there are many traditional Christians who believe Jesus actually wrote the gospels himself.
God's Truth
New member
Just because Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, it does not mean it happened before Mark wrote his book. Why didn't Mark talk about it in his book?
I wonder if they mean literally or by the Holy Spirit through the authors?
Your logic makes sense to you; as it should.
Is it sound though?
In the absence of a bit more detailed information as to what falls into what category; yes.
Absent of that bit more detailed information as to who, what, when, where, why, and how, your logic in this is much like that of a toddler playing under the kitchen sink.
Spotting a bottle with Draino in it; concluding from its limited information that "this is liquid; water is liquid; water is for when I am thirsty; I am thirsty - gulp, gulp, gulp - WAH!"
Poor tyke is yet unable to read labels on bottles categorizing their intended use, thus; their necessarily specific instruction.
The source of your off-based logic?
Concluding based on 2 Timothy 3: 16, 17 absent of "the label on the bottle" that is 2 Timothy 2:15.
Mark was interested in portraying a Jesus who could actually know what the future would be. If the temple had already been destroyed, then by having Jesus predict it, Mark was able to assign clairvoyance to Jesus.
Even the Holy Spirit can contradict itself. The simple fact of the hundreds of different translations and versions of the Bible attest to that. And, of course, the very existence of the four gospels proves this.
The divine sprit or "Holy Spirit" is always mediated through human beings at different times and places from a multitude of diverse opinions and theologies.
God's Truth
New member
Mark says nothing about the war.
There is no reason to believe Mark would wait so many years to write his book.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ.
Jesus does not contradict himself.
Authors and writers write when they write. And the consensus is that Mark wrote his gospel around 70 AD.
If we fail to separate what Jesus as a figure of history said from the theological pronouncements placed into his mouth after his death, then we allow Jesus' contradictions to stand side by side.
Compare the compassionate rabbi from the Jesus who destroys the unfaithful by having a sword come out of his mouth so that the blood of the unbelievers reaches the level of his horse's bridle for 200 miles.
Now THAT'S a contradiction!
God's Truth
New member
I care very little about what the consensus says.
There is no reason to believe Mark waited until he was an old man to write his book; and there is no reason to believe Mark went through the war and the destruction of the temple.
It is not a contradiction.
Jesus came to bear sin, but when he comes again he will not come to bear sin. He will come for those who are waiting for him. He will raise all from the dead, and give everyone a new body. The saved will meet him in the air, and the wrath of God will come upon the earth.
It is Mark (and Matthew, who followed Mark) who says "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
Personally, this is what I would expect Mark's community of believers would attribute to Jesus, since the horrors of the Roman/Jewish War were still remembered. They saw a Jesus who suffered with them.
I don't see your idea of Jesus actually "walking his talk."
You are speaking faith claims, not facts and evidence. And you seem to be conflating some of Paul's theology with the theologies of the gospel writers.
If Jesus was just as violent, revenge-filled and bloodthirsty as the next person, his followers would have never seen him as the Son of God or Lord. The basic thing about Jesus was that he was not some all-too-human run of the mill man.