Prayer is useless?

[Soggy]

Don't blame GM. Blame the guy that wrote such nonsense. Or maybe the guy who said that was what it ment. Or the guy who said that's what the guy said when he said what the author ment.

You mean Matthew, who wrote this stuff down decades after the supposed source, Jesus Christ, died? Ever play the game of telephone?

 

[Lisa0825]

One more thing before I sign-off for the day...

My parents raised me Catholic, and as an adult, I have been a member at various protestant churches over the years. But all my life there were things about the Christian view of God that never sounded right to me. I have never once believed in Hell. I have never once believed that God would condemn people simply for not having the *proper* belief. I have ALWAYS believed that people of all faiths were connected in some way, and that none were bad or wrong. I have ALWAYS believed that if in fact God does judge us, it is based on who we are and what is in our hearts and not whose version of religion we adhered to.

Now, since all of these thoughts are things that I arrived at on my own, and not from the churches I attended, I could very well say that it has been an innate belief, possibly even given to me by God. What gives any HUMAN the right/ability/knowledge/power to judge my beliefs and label them wrong? The ONLY being in the universe who could possibly do that is God him/herself, and no human being can claim that title. So, all their holier-than-thou attempts at conversion and prayers for my salvation are unnecessary. I have my truth, and as much faith in it as they have in theirs.

 

[H2Andy]

You mean Matthew, who wrote this stuff down decades after the supposed source, Jesus Christ, died?

actually, Matthew used Mark and another source (usually called "Q") to
write his gospel, as well as information unique to Matthew.

Mark was written first.

Like Matthew, Luke used Mark, Q, and information unique to Luke.

by the time John was written (the last of the Canonical Gospels to be
written), things were all over the place, and John isn't even considered
a synoptic gospel (like Mark, Matthew, and Luke).

Read Mark in a sitting, and then John in a sitting, and you will see
the tremendous leap in the "Jesus Message" that has taken place,
already within the first 70 years of Jesus' death.

one of the earliest gospels, Thomas, is not a cannonical gospel
because by the time the canon was decided upon, Christianity had chaged
so much that the church fathers felt the early gospel was "alien"
to Christianity.

now, the gospel of Thomas handn't changed. what had changed
was the views of Christianity around.

a fascinating subject, and one i wish i knew more about

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Ponder the prospect that much of what we read in the Bible was actually written by people like Pat Robertson ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Soggy]

actually, Matthew used Mark and another source (usually called "Q") to
write his gospel, as well as information unique to Matthew.

Yes, but Christ was the original source, Mark is considered a secondary source. It is very facinating. I have especially enjoyed reading a bit about the lost gospels (Thomas being one of them) and how they susposedly directly contradict each other in places.

For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Gospel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_thomas

 

[H2Andy]

yeah, i agree with the "telephone" game metaphor

just pointing out that Matthew was evern further removed than most people think

by the way, if THomas was written around 40 AD, as it is thought,
it may likely be the "Q" source that has been missing.

it's funny, read descriptions of what "Q" would look like if found, and
then look at Thomas, and it's the same darned thing!

 

[H2Andy]

Ponder the prospect that much of what we read in the Bible was actually written by people like Pat Robertson ...

that is a rather sobering thought...

 

[plankspanker]

Ponder the prospect that much of what we read in the Bible was actually written by people like Pat Robertson ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

scary....

 

[Hemlon]

that is a rather sobering thought...

Agreed. I've never been sure why people assume that the early leaders of the Christian religion were noble and pure.

Sure, they might have been...but they might have been just as corrupt as so many leaders in the Christian religion are today.

 

[plankspanker]

actually, Matthew used Mark and another source (usually called "Q") to
write his gospel, as well as information unique to Matthew.

Mark was written first.

Like Matthew, Luke used Mark, Q, and information unique to Luke.

by the time John was written (the last of the Canonical Gospels to be
written), things were all over the place, and John isn't even considered
a synoptic gospel (like Mark, Matthew, and Luke).

Read Mark in a sitting, and then John in a sitting, and you will see
the tremendous leap in the "Jesus Message" that has taken place,
already within the first 70 years of Jesus' death.

one of the earliest gospels, Thomas, is not a cannonical gospel
because by the time the canon was decided upon, Christianity had chaged
so much that the church fathers felt the early gospel was "alien"
to Christianity.

now, the gospel of Thomas handn't changed. what had changed
was the views of Christianity around.

a fascinating subject, and one i wish i knew more about

Where do you get this info? I would love to read about this kind of stuff. I will check out the links that soggy posted as well.