Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

He asked - I'm just answering .

I think it was a good answer. I don't see how any of the writers could have included everything that Jesus said and did.

 

[H2Andy]

ok, well... if we need to return to the original context of the passage, let's look at it
as a whole.

Mathew 16: 24-28:

Jesus then said to his disciples, "Anyone who wishes to be a follower of mine must renounce self; he must take up his cross and follow me. Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. What will anyone gain by winning the whole world at the cost of his life? Or what can he give to buy his life back? For the Son of Man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will give everyone his due reward. Truly, I tell you: there are some of those standing here who will not taste death before they have seen the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom."

in context, Jesus is speaking of the future rewards that he will hand out, upon his return, to those who were faithful. the fact that Jesus is speaking about handing out rewards means he is talking about the second coming and the judgment to follow. he then states that the handing out of the rewards (i.e. the second coming and judgment) will happen within the life time of some of his audience.

i don't know what could be clearer.

btw, this can't be refereing to the transfiguration. there are no angels present at the
transfiguration, just a voice (Matthew 17:1-8). triple check: no angels.
(re-read the above before you ask why the angels are important)

I think it was a good answer. I don't see how any of the writers could have included everything that Jesus said and did.

i think the last words of the founder of your religion, whom you consider to be the Son of God, would be pretty important information.

don't you think they would have gotten the last words right?

yet, we have four gospels, and three versions of what his last words were

this is not "just" some information. this is pretty darn key stuff. what were
the last words of God before he died on the cross for us?

you would think they would be in agreement

 

[MikeFerrara]

ok, well... if we need to return to the original context of the passage, let's look at it
as a whole.

Mathew 16: 24-28:

Jesus then said to his disciples, "Anyone who wishes to be a follower of mine must renounce self; he must take up his cross and follow me. Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. What will anyone gain by winning the whole world at the cost of his life? Or what can he give to buy his life back? For the Son of Man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will give everyone his due reward. Truly, I tell you: there are some of those standing here who will not taste death before they have seen the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom."

in context, Jesus is speaking of the future rewards that he will hand out, upon his return, to those who were faithful. the fact that Jesus is speaking about handing out rewards means he is talking about the second coming and the judgment to follow. he then states that the handing out of the rewards (i.e. the second coming and judgment) will happen within the life time of some of his audience.

i don't know what could be clearer.

I don't know how to be any clearer either. Look further back in 16 and on to 17 and read the parellel scriptures in the other gospels. You're just not going back far enough and foreward far enough to see the context. He goes from talking about his charter on earth and the need to suffer to talking about the transfiguration with one forward refernce to the second comming in one of the books that addresses the conversation.

btw, this can't be refereing to the transfiguration. there are no angels present at the
transfiguration, just a voice (Matthew 17:1-8). triple check: no angels.
(re-read the above before you ask why the angels are important)

It can be and he didn't say there would be. Read the rest as I suggested.

If you want to read about the end times and the great tribulation drop that and move on to Matthew 24 where he is discussing the destruction of the temple and the end times.

i think the last words of the founder of your religion, whom you consider to be the Son of God, would be pretty important information.

don't you think they would have gotten the last words right?

yet, we have four gospels, and three versions of what his last words were

this is not "just" some information. this is pretty darn key stuff. what were
the last words of God before he died on the cross for us?

you would think they would be in agreement

Why do you think this is so important? Why is it " pretty darn key stuff"? Pending further study, I'm with Yoda on this one. None of the four gospels give us more than a little piece of Jesus's ministry on earth. I read one news paper and get a piece, I read another and get another piece. To get as close to the whole story as I can, I have to read a bunch of them because each writer has his own idea of which points are important. The fact that one documents some events while another includes something different dosn't shock me in the least. As to what were the very last words Jesus spoke and their importance, I guess I haven't given that point much thought yet because it didn't strike me as the most important thing to study. There is a lot of Bible there and it takes more than a little effort to really study it.

I will say this. I think I will study the question further because even if the whole thing was faked, those who bound it all into the Bible read it first. If we think it's a simple matter of someone not getting their stories straingt, it would be we who are missing something.

You, having the real life job that you do (no dig honest), should be good at research. Why don't you help?

 

[SeaYoda]

I think it was a good answer. I don't see how any of the writers could have included everything that Jesus said and did.

John 21:25
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
KJV

 

[H2Andy]

You, having the real life job that you do (no dig honest), should be good at research. Why don't you help?

lol, ok ok... i was a bit touchy earlier...

well... i've looked into it, and basically, it has led me to conclude that the Gospels were written by men (and to err is human), decades after the events they are talking about, none of whom were eye-witnesses.

but from a faith point of view, these are wholy unsatisfactory answers

John 21:25
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
KJV

certainly, that is not in dispute.

the issue is: why do three of the four writers give DIFFERENT versions of the SAME EVENT?

an altogether different question, you must admit

 

[Green_Manelishi]

lol, ok ok... i was a bit touchy earlier...

well... i've looked into it, and basically, it has led me to conclude that the Gospels were written by men (and to err is human), decades after the events they are talking about, none of whom were eye-witnesses.

but from a faith point of view, these are wholy unsatisfactory answers

certainly, that is not in dispute.

the issue is: why do three of the four writers give DIFFERENT versions of the SAME EVENT?

an altogether different question, you must admit

They don't give different VERSIONS, they provide different perspectives. One focuses on Christ's humanity, one on His divinity, .... These different approaches cause what some folks believe to be their telling a different story from each other.

 

[Thalassamania]

well... i've looked into it, and basically, it has led me to conclude that the Gospels were written by men (and to err is human), decades after the events they are talking about, none of whom were eye-witnesses.

Now that you've resolved that there are no contemporanious cross-references for Jesus, what my historian friends have told me comes into play.

To demonstrate that someone actually existed (in an historical sense) you need two contemporary cross-references.

 

[H2Andy]

They don't give different VERSIONS, they provide different perspectives. One focuses on Christ's humanity, one on His divinity, .... These different approaches cause what some folks believe to be their telling a different story from each other.

well, they give his last words as being different. what were his last words? can you tell from the existing texts?

i think that's a factual issue

To demonstrate that someone actually existed (in an historical sense) you need two contemporary cross-references.

the historicity of Jesus is a problem... no doubt about that

however, given the writings that came into being within 20 years of his death,
i believe that there was a historical Jesus, and possibly several other historical figures, all of whose traditions merged into what we know today as "Jesus"

also, keep in mind that the earliest writings of the New Testament (Paul's epistles,
1 Thessalonians being the first one) happened fairly quickly after the death of the historical Jesus (say within 20 years). while it is clear that Paul did not know Jesus, he certainly had heard many of the stories that were later written in the Gospels.

to get an idea of what early Christians knew about Jesus (before the Gospels),
read the undisputed Pauline letters: 1 Thessalonians, 1-2 Corinthians, Phillipians, Philemon, Galatians, and Romans.

Romans (the last of the undisputed Pauline letters) was written around 57-58 A.D. The Gospel of Mark (the first canonical Gospel), is usually dated between 60-70 A.D.

 

[Thalassamania]

while it is clear that Paul did not know Jesus, he certainly had heard many of the stories that were later written in the Gospels.

to get an idea of what early Christians knew about Jesus (before the Gospels),
read the undisputed Pauline letters: 1 Thessalonians, 1-2 Corinthians, Phillipians, Philemon, Galatians, and Romans.

Romans (the last of the undisputed Pauline letters) was written around 57-58 A.D. The Gospel of Mark (the first canonical Gospel), is usually dated around 60-70 A.D.

As they say in court, "Objection your honor, hearsay!"

 

[H2Andy]

yes, certainly

another problem is that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the Gospels were written at least 30 years later, in Greek

so ... you have translation to deal with too

nevertheless, i do think you can get a fairly good picture of what the teachings of the early Jesus movement (if not of Jesus himself) were

in other words, we can figure out what Jesus meant to his followers 20 years after his death

i think honestly that's the best we can do with the existing texts