+
/ Re: To Aaron. Moses verses Jesus / 13Sept2000 /
/ Ngz: alt.religion.deism,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>> "G. R. Gaudreau" <revgr@sympatico.ca> 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 <gadfly1999@my-deja.com> 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 <gadfly1999@my-deja.com> 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" <revgr@sympatico.ca> 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" <siesta@kilkenny.ca> 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