another CL fail, in my opinion

[wades_keys]

What Jesus was saying, at least in my experience (being raised Catholic, then Evangelical, and having 12 years of Christian schooling with an amazing religion/theology teacher my last 3 years of high school who had a DD) was that there's no necessary conflict between your secular needs and responsibilities and being right in the eyes of God. In the specific case of this anecdote, paying taxes to a foreign, heathen invader has no bearing on whether you are right in God's eyes. It is, in essence, irrelevant.

True.

Looking at it from the lens of that story, making sure that you have a marketable image for spreading the Word (or however one chooses to express that sentiment) is irrelevant in the eyes of God.

Not exactly. Remember the "seven deadly sins"? What was the primary sin of Satan as talked about in Ezekial 28?

But of course, that's the issue with Christian theology in general. Interpretations of scripture (especially when one figures in the Old Testament, which is historically fascinating but almost entirely unrelated to the events of the New Testament) offer a million different lenses through wish one can choose to view any scenario. It's the unavoidable consequence of the Bible itself being a conglomeration

[Vito Corleone]

 

Well, the Pharisees (which, incidentally, is kinda funny as a note -- Pharisees and the like were Rabbis, teachers; technically, Jesus was also a Pharisee) were attempting to trick him in that particular story into saying that people should not pay their taxes, so that they could run to the Roman provincial representatives and say "here's a rabblerouser who says people should stop paying their taxes". What Jesus was saying, at least in my experience (being raised Catholic, then Evangelical, and having 12 years of Christian schooling with an amazing religion/theology teacher my last 3 years of high school who had a DD) was that there's no necessary conflict between your secular needs and responsibilities and being right in the eyes of God. In the specific case of this anecdote, paying taxes to a foreign, heathen invader has no bearing on whether you are right in God's eyes. It is, in essence, irrelevant.

 

 

Yes, that's how I've always understood it as well.

 

 

Looking at it from the lens of that story, making sure that you have a marketable image for spreading the Word (or however one chooses to express that sentiment) is irrelevant in the eyes of God.

 

 

I think that's perhaps taking it a step too far. Jesus didn't say anything about what do to if the two worlds were COMBINED and simply because he thought material concerns to be irrelevant doesn't mean he would be ok with them being combined. In fact, I think his words in that statement show a clear intent to keep them separate. But I'll let better scholars than I determine that.

 

My take is that he would either be OK with the idea of Christian Rock Bands For Profit or not. And if he was OK with it, he probably wouldn't care if you took it the next step and only hired good looking singers to help the band along commercially.

 

The idea that he'd draw the line somewhere in the middle is what seems odd to me.

[Nijyo]

 

Not exactly. Remember the "seven deadly sins"? What was the primary sin of Satan as talked about in Ezekial 28?

 

 

Are you referring to the "King of Tyre"? The "sin" was arrogance, pride and (and this seems to line up with what we know of Hiram and Solomon below) idolatry.

 

It's the considered opinion of most theologians that the "King of Tyre" is simply the "King of Tyre" (perhaps one of these, maybe "Hiram" who helped Solomon build his Temple) not Satan. Additionally, there's translation issues with "cherubs" (more likely it meant "multitudes of living people") and Eden (which is more likely "riches" or "luxury"). For that matter, "Satan" as a personification is not directly referred to until the NT (note that there's really no evidence at all that "Lucifer" and "Satan" are the same people, and even then most of the really good "War in Heaven" stuff strangely got left out of the Christian version of the OT), and even then it's a matter of debate whether it was intended in the original text to be an actual personification or simply referred to "an adversary" (which is the original Hebrew meaning of "satan", pronounced approximately "saw-tawn") in the general sense (meaning "temptation" in context, particular when tempting Jesus). One can easily see how this works when one reads "Satan came to Jesus" as "the adversary (in the abstract sense) of temptation came to Jesus". One does not need to go to far afield to see how Jesus, with the power he possessed, could experience the temptation to use it for personal gain, without the need for an actual personification of evil to provide it.

 

Similar to how the snake in the Garden is simply a talking snake, not Satan (since the story is adapted/imported from non-Hebrew sources which contained many such talking animals).

 

Translation is the bane of Biblical Literalism (to be fair, it's also the bane of theological scholars).

 

One has to remember that where the OT references historical figures it is generally referencing real people, places and events, simply often from a biased viewpoint (as with all histories), whereas when things get "mythological" it tends to be due to an importation of preceding oral storytelling or importation of similar stories from historically/geographically adjoining cultures (see: The Flood or subtle references in the original Hebrew to pre-monotheistic beliefs that make it to the English when YHWH refers to "ourselves" and "we" before creating humans, which *is* a correct translation).

 

As for "knowing god" as opposed to "knowing about god", there's no difference. For a Christian, it's extremely important than knowing the roots of their faith and the actual development from it's Jewish roots to the modern days. This is a tradition from the faith's Jewish roots that could stand a revival, as opposed to the modern Evangelical take on the whole thing.

 

"Just winging it" leads to all sorts of nonsense. This is the major issue I noted between learning from Catholic scholars and Evangelical folks. The former knew about all the bits and bots and foibles and problems in Scripture, but still believed, because the Bible is the work of Man attempting to record the works and words of God. Evangelicals tend to try and force the entire work into a consistent narrative in order to reinforce their worldview. The latter leads to all sorts of problems, not the least of which is pervasive cognitive dissonance.

[Nijyo]

I think that's perhaps taking it a step too far. Jesus didn't say anything about what do to if the two worlds were COMBINED and simply because he thought material concerns to be irrelevant doesn't mean he would be ok with them being combined. In fact, I think his words in that statement show a clear intent to keep them separate. But I'll let better scholars than I determine that.

 

It could be argued that way, I suppose. It's hard because it's not like we have the authorized biography

 

My take is that he would either be OK with the idea of Christian Rock Bands For Profit or not. And if he was OK with it, he probably wouldn't care if you took it the next step and only hired good looking singers to help the band along commercially. The idea that he'd draw the line somewhere in the middle is what seems odd to me.

 

I generally agree.

[Vito Corleone]

It could be argued that way, I suppose. It's hard because it's not like we have the authorized biography

True. But when taken together with some of his other comments and actions about money and wealth, such as the ones you mentioned, it isn't a big stretch to think that he was fine with people making money--just keep it and its corrupting influences out of God's sight.

As you pointed out, he was answering a question he KNEW was a set-up by the Pharisees. He gave a nice, glib answer that dismissed their concerns about money out-of-hand and the hypocrisy trap they were trying to set up for him while still saying "God isn't interested in your money BS". Smart dude, that Jesus.

[Nijyo]

True. But when taken together with some of his other comments and actions about money and wealth, such as the ones you mentioned, it isn't a big stretch to think that he was fine with people making money--just keep it and its corrupting influences out of God's sight. As you pointed out, he was answering a question he KNEW was a set-up by the Pharisees. He gave a nice, glib answer that dismissed their concerns about money out-of-hand and the hypocrisy trap they were trying to set up for him while still saying "God isn't interested in your money BS". Smart dude, that Jesus.

 

Sure, but again, keep in mind that most of the things we attribute as "Jesus' opinions" or "Jesus' teachings" were written down years if not many decades after he is generally assumed to have died. None of the "accepted" Gospels were written by the people whose name they bear (some of them, the Synoptic Gospels -- Matthew Mark and Luke -- actually are interrelated and associated with a "lost" Gospel that we no longer have that theologians call "Q") and they were written for different audiences at different times (and that doesn't even take into consideration the other, "non-accepted" Gospels which have some very interesting stuff in them). So it's important to not become *too* deeply involved in attempting to figure out exactly what Jesus meant and how to act by that example. "Be Excellent to Eachother" is a good general idea.

[Vito Corleone]

Sure, but again, keep in mind that most of the things we attribute as "Jesus' opinions" or "Jesus' teachings" were written down years if not many decades after he is generally assumed to have died. None of the "accepted" Gospels were written by the people whose name they bear (some of them, the Synoptic Gospels -- Matthew Mark and Luke -- actually are interrelated and associated with a "lost" Gospel that we no longer have that theologians call " Q ") and they were written for different audiences at different times (and that doesn't even take into consideration the other, "non-accepted" Gospels which have some very interesting stuff in them). So it's important to not become *too* deeply involved in attempting to figure out exactly what Jesus meant and how to act by that example. "Be Excellent to Eachother" is a good general idea.

All true.

[kmart]

Sure, but again, keep in mind that most of the things we attribute as "Jesus' opinions" or "Jesus' teachings" were written down years if not many decades after he is generally assumed to have died.

 

 

Likely HUNDREDS of years after.

 

HUNDREDS

 

And THEN you get into the issues of how many versions and translations and edits and changes happened over the next several centuries before things narrowed down into more commonly accepted versions, etc.

 

Which is why all this back and forth claiming that "Jesus didn't say that, he said THIS" or "Jesus meant the other" is, frankly speaking, a joke.

One simply cannot take ANYTHING written in the bible literally or as fact; you simply have no way of knowing what's factual and what is not.

NOBODY knows.

[Vito Corleone]

Likely HUNDREDS of years after. HUNDREDS

 

 

No, the general consensus of historians is that the Gospels were written within 100 years of Jesus' death and that Paul's writings occurred earlier. The hypothesized "Q" source for much of Luke and Matthew that Nijyo referenced would also, obviously have been written earlier.

[wades_keys]

 

For a Christian, it's extremely important than knowing the roots of their faith and the actual development from it's Jewish roots to the modern days. This is a tradition from the faith's Jewish roots that could stand a revival, as opposed to the modern Evangelical take on the whole thing. "Just winging it" leads to all sorts of nonsense. This is the major issue I noted between learning from Catholic scholars and Evangelical folks. The former knew about all the bits and bots and foibles and problems in Scripture, but still believed, because the Bible is the work of Man attempting to record the works and words of God. Evangelicals tend to try and force the entire work into a consistent narrative in order to reinforce their worldview. The latter leads to all sorts of problems, not the least of which is pervasive cognitive dissonance.

 

I understand your position. But the Word says that Spirit will guide the believer in understanding what is written. I had the Catholic theology hammered into me for years. I've been to the classes. So what you're saying re EZ 28 is not new to me. But I do in fact support the view that the Word is a "living Word" which can and does apply to scenarios other than those originally written. Ultimately, reading the Word without the aid of the Spirit is a futile exercise.

 

And here's the beautiful thing. You STILL got the same message I did from EZ 28. Whether or not it is about Satan becomes irrelevant. The point is about the sin of pride, exalting oneself as God, and the downfall that will occur (or has occurred, from your viewpoint).

 

Re Money: There's a proverb (I believe it's in proverbs, don't have my Bible handy) that says "The gold and silver belong to the Lord". Also there are many, many other scriptures involving finance. In fact, it is one of the most talked about issues in the Bible. So Jesus wasn't "anti-commerce" per se. But He sure was "anti pride", as is His father. If I recall, the first of the sins that the "Lord hates" is "A proud look". ("a lying tounge, feet that are swif to run to evil"). So pride and lying get special treatment in the Word. Also see Rev 21 for the "list" of those who will be "outside the city".

 

Bottom line is the Word indicates that there are degrees of sin: sins that the Lord "hates" (a product of translation as you well know) more than others.

[wades_keys]

 

No, the general consensus of historians is that the Gospels were written within 100 years of Jesus' death and that Paul's writings occurred earlier. The hypothesized "Q" source for much of Luke and Matthew that Nijyo referenced would also, obviously have been written earlier.

 

Correct.

 

It's interesting to see how Catholic and protestant scholars differ on the issue of authorship. But IIRC the main historical marker is AD 70, a Roman conquest. John's gospel has indicators of this event, placing if afterwards. I believe Luke is still using terms and situations that place it prior to this event. In particular there were some conventions involving slavery that changed radically after AD 70. I'm going from memory here, but I'm in the ballpark. Can confirm later when I get home.

 

The important thing to know is that Mark was written first. I believe all (credible) scholars agree on this.

[wades_keys]

And check it out!

 

We just had a CIVIL religious discussion.

 

That's one for the record books. Thanks Nijyo, Guido, Kmart. Everyone shared their viewpoint and experience and there was respect all around, even through disagreements.

 

This is how it's supposed to be. Proving once more that this forum (along with LiveSound) is the most mature on this board.

[Vito Corleone]

The important thing to know is that Mark was written first. I believe all (credible) scholars agree on this.

 

 

Yes, it is generally accepted that Mark is the 2nd primary source for Luke and Matthew although, of course, the existance of "Q" is purely hypothetical. However most scholars believe that the last part of Mark---2nd half of the last chapter, IIRC--was likely written a couple of hundred years later. There are early manuscripts exist without this last bit.

 

OTHO, you have more "fundamentalist" scholars who still believe they were all written earlier, and in the order that they appeal in the Bible. And that the writers all knew Jesus personally. I'm not sure how much credibility these theories still have outside of fundamentalist circles, however.

[wades_keys]

Yes, it is generally accepted that Mark is the 2nd primary source for Luke and Matthew although, of course, the existance of "Q" is purely hypothetical. However most scholars believe that the last part of Mark---2nd half of the last chapter, IIRC--was likely written a couple of hundred years later. There are early manuscripts exist without this last bit.

Oh yes, I'm well familiar with this. Vs. 9-20 I believe. One of the most controversial scriptures in the Bible. It has the "snake handling" bit in there. But I think the snake handlers don't interpret this properly. Jesus' goal was NOT to have people handle snakes, it was to preach the Word. He then said that "these signs" will accompany them.

 

Given that He also said "This generation will not believe unless they see a sign", I think He was referring to signs that were specific to that age - the foundation of the church. So expecting those signs now is IMO foolish and contrary to His intent. Especially since He also told the Pharisees: "A wicked generation seeks after a sign, and will find none" or something to that effect (paraphrasing from memory).

 

OTHO, you have more "fundamentalist" scholars who still believe they were all written earlier, and in the order that they appeal in the Bible. And that the writers all knew Jesus personally. I'm not sure how much credibility these theories still have outside of fundamentalist circles, however.

Give credit to the Catholic church for reaching across the aisle to other scholars, sharing their documents and generally advancing Biblical knowledge with their most recent translation, which was started in the 1940's and finished in the 1960's.

 

Re "Q" - the more conservative (not fundamentalist) protestants such as Charles Ryrie acknowledge "Q" while leaving open the option that authors such as Luke may have used a scribe, which would (in their view) account for stylistic and grammatical differences.

 

And as for "fundamentalist" doctrine, EG "reading too much into things". I always refer those people (and myself) to Deut 29:29. Check that one out.

[kmart]

No, the general consensus of historians is that the Gospels were written within 100 years of Jesus' death and that Paul's writings occurred earlier. The hypothesized "Q" source for much of Luke and Matthew that Nijyo referenced would also, obviously have been written earlier.

 

My understanding has always been that the original gospels were passed on orally; the actual collected writings did not happen until much later.

[Vito Corleone]

 

My understanding has always been that the original gospels were passed on orally; the actual collected writings did not happen until much later.

 

 

The generally accepted history is that the gospels first existed in oral form, and were first written down in the period of 60-120 AD. They were officially "canonized" around 400 AD.

[wades_keys]

 

My understanding has always been that the original gospels were passed on orally; the actual collected writings did not happen until much later.

 

Depends on which Gospel in particular, but yes that is almost certainly the case. Transcribing was painfully slow. Scribes were likely used in some cases. Also, the Jews often re-transcribed documents (discarding the originals!), often many times. To keep them "fresh" as it were. Discrepancies were introduced during these transcriptions.

 

That's why the Qumran scrolls are so important.

[Vito Corleone]

One thing I have found interesting in my historical study of this (I'm a history buff and, as such, have read up quite a bit on the early Christian period and the history of the New Testament, although I by no means consider myself an expert of the subject) is how little discrepency there is between the Gospels as we know them and earlier manuscripts and fragments that have been discovered. Most are pretty trivial actually.

[wades_keys]

One thing I have found interesting in my historical study of this (I'm a history buff and, as such, have read up quite a bit on the early Christian period and the history of the New Testament, although I by no means consider myself an expert of the subject) is how little discrepency there is between the Gospels as we know them and earlier manuscripts and fragments that have been discovered. Most are pretty trivial actually.

Exactly.

 

Much of the "discrepancies" are due to the simplistic nature of the Greek language, and difficulties translating that into English with any degree of "accuracy".

 

I'm sure there are issues with the Hebrew as well but I don't know much about Hebrew. I know a few of the Greek words and their meaning. A strange language, Greek. In particular they didn't have the variety of imperfect tenses that English has.

[mr3lions]

I can see this one getting locked realllll soon

[BlueStrat]

 

Likely HUNDREDS of years after. HUNDREDS

 

 

Most of the Gospels were written about 40-140 years after the resurrection.

Gospel of Mark: around 70 AD

Gospel of Matthew: 40 AD to 140 AD

Gospel of Luke: AD 60

Gospel of John AD 80 to 90

 

The gospels were written for different audiences, hence the different emphases on events and quotations.

Matthew was written first, for the Jews.

Mark was written for the Romans.

Luke was written for the Greeks.

John was written for Christians believers of the time.

 

It is interesting to note that Jesus, in the Gospels, predicted the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem. That happened in 70 AD, yet none of the gospels mention it happening, indicating that they probably were written before that time except for the gospel of John, who was in exile on Patmos in Greece and likely wouldn't have known about it.

 

As to edits, etc, the prime source documents thus far found are remarkably faithful to the versions extant today, more so than most people are probably aware.

[Vito Corleone]

Most of the Gospels were written about 40-140 years after the resurrection. Gospel of Mark: around 70 AD Gospel of Matthew: 40 AD to 140 AD Gospel of Luke: AD 60 Gospel of John AD 80 to 90

 

 

At the risk of nitpicking---if the ressurection occurred around 30 AD, your timeline brings the Gospels even closer than 40 years.

It is interesting to note that Jesus, in the Gospels, predicted the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem. That happened in 70 AD, yet none of the gospels mention it happening, indicating that they probably were written before that time except for the gospel of John, who was in exile on Patmos in Greece and likely wouldn't have known about it.

 

 

The other side of that coin is that Paul, who died in 67 AD, seems to have no knowledge of the Gospels or their authors based on any of his writings. He makes no mention of the virgin birth, never quotes Jesus, nor mentions any of Jesus' miracles mentioned in the Gospels. This is one of the main reasons most historians date the Gospels after the writings and death of Paul.

[BlueStrat]

 

At the risk of nitpicking---if the ressurection occurred around 30 AD, your timeline brings the Gospels even closer than 40 years. The other side of that coin is that Paul, who died in 67 AD, seems to have no knowledge of the Gospels or their authors based on any of his writings. He makes no mention of the virgin birth, never quotes Jesus, nor mentions any of Jesus' miracles mentioned in the Gospels. This is one of the main reasons most historians date the Gospels after the writings and death of Paul.

 

 

Perhaps because Paul was not around during the ministry of Jesus, but rather received his instruction from the resurrected Christ (Gal. 1:1, 11-12). Paul was a Jewish pharisee until somewhere around a year to three years after the resurrection, and was not from the area where Jesus' ministry took place. In addition, Paul was concerned with preaching the crucified (1 Cor 1:23) and resurrected (1 Cor 15: 20-26) Christ, not the earthly one. Anyway, we can't be sure, and we don't have all the answers, but it's a fascinating discussion, for me anyway!

[Vito Corleone]

Perhaps because Paul was not around during the ministry of Jesus, but rather received his instruction from the resurrected Christ (Gal. 1:1, 11-12). Paul was a Jewish pharisee until somewhere around a year to three years after the resurrection, and was not from the area where Jesus' ministry took place. In addition, Paul was concerned with preaching the crucified (1 Cor 1:23) and resurrected (1 Cor 15: 20-26) Christ, not the earthly one.

 

 

Perhaps. But certainly had the texts existed during his lifetime Paul would have been aware of them. And considering his role regarding the early formation of the church it is certainly noteworthy that he makes no mention of them or of their contents in any of his letters.

 

And as far as the Gospels not mentioning the destruction of the temple--well, they DO mention his prediction of it, of course. Which for many scholars IS evidence that the gospels were written after its destruction. They just don't mention it in a "see! he got it right!" way. Which A) for anyone reading a text written after the destruction wouldn't be necessary and B) would be out of context with the writing styles of any of the Gospels which never give any indication of how much time has passed between the events and the writings.

 

 

Anyway, we can't be sure, and we don't have all the answers, but it's a fascinating discussion, for me anyway!

 

 

 

I agree.