Do differences in practices of faith mean we follow the same Jesus Christ? (reject, gospel)

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

So Paul, referred to judaic law and not the gospel? whats your proof? as far as the bible is concerned, the apostles taught the gospel of Christ. why are yous aying otherwise?




"the aposltes were SENT last" was what the verse said, could you elaborate how this referred to place?

Paul's letters to Corinth are dated to the 50's c.e. Mark (the earliest gospel) was not written until post-70 c.e. Further, we know that Matthew was written for a Jewish community. Corinth was gentile, so Matthew would not have circulated there as early as Paul in any case. Therefore, what Paul referred to cannot have been the gospels. What was written at the time of the Corinthian letters was the Judaic Law, so that was what Paul referred to when he spoke of "what is written."

The apostles taught the good news, but could not have taught the written gospels, because they weren't written yet.

The NRSV (widely accepted by scholars as one of the most accurate English translations) says: "For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, as though sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to mortals." This in context with the preceeding vs. 8, talking about how the audience have become kings, apart from the apostles.

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Paul's letters to Corinth are dated to the 50's c.e. Mark (the earliest gospel) was not written until post-70 c.e. Further, we know that Matthew was written for a Jewish community. Corinth was gentile, so Matthew would not have circulated there as early as Paul in any case. Therefore, what Paul referred to cannot have been the gospels. What was written at the time of the Corinthian letters was the Judaic Law, so that was what Paul referred to when he spoke of "what is written."

sigh! so you are basing your arguments on information that is not in th bible? this is not going to work. how can you argue with the context of what i say when you don't even refer to the same thing? geez!

Sir, you interpret something you read with what is written, not with when it's written. i dotn know where you got thta logic, but it is totally screwed.

Paul referred to the gospel of christ, basing on what was written. Its all over the book of hebrews. " he said we cannot be justified by the law of moses."

You obviously do not know so much about the bible, thats why i have yet to see verses to support you claims. i knew it, you were basing on your limited opinion al this time. why would you think you can shake biblical fcts with your personal opinion? as i said i am nobody. but the bible contains God's words. if you reject what i read, then it is not me that you reject.

Originally Posted by sojourner

The apostles taught the good news, but could not have taught the written gospels, because they weren't written yet.

Gospel means good news Mr. Sojourner ... i didn't know you didn't know.

Besides, they taught the Gospel, because they were the ones who wrote it. come on man, make some sense.

[sojourner]

sigh! so you are basing your arguments on information that is not in th bible?

My argument is that the Bible doesn't say what you believe it to say, based upon actual scholarship and research.

how can you argue with the context of what i say when you don't even refer to the same thing?

Because you obviously don't know what you're talking about when it comes to biblical scholarship.

Sir, you interpret something you read with what is written, not with when it's written. i dotn know where you got thta logic, but it is totally screwed.

This quotation proves my last point. When something was written can make a big difference in interpretation, as well as who wrote it, to whom it was written, and the cultural context in which it was written. Whose logic is "totally screwed?"

Paul referred to the gospel of christ, basing on what was written.

The gospels were not written when Paul wrote that statement.

You obviously do not know so much about the bible, thats why i have yet to see verses to support you claims. i knew it, you were basing on your limited opinion al this time. why would you think you can shake biblical fcts with your personal opinion? as i said i am nobody. but the bible contains God's words. if you reject what i read, then it is not me that you reject.

and this after my having taken at least 8 college and graduate courses in the Bible...holding a perfect gradepoint average.

I don't use verses to support my claims, because the verses in question are what we're dealing with. Proof texting is very poor scholarship, because IT DOESN'T WORK. The scope of my "opinion" is limited only by the blinders you choose to wear, not by my lack of scholarship. "Casting pearls before swine" leaps to mind here.

I'm not seeking to "shake Biblical fact." I seek to support Biblical evidence with scholarship and reason. What I hope to shake is the hopelessly abysmal line of reasoning you present with regard to the Bible.

What I reject is not what the Bible says, but what you think it says.

Gospel means good news Mr. Sojourner ... i didn't know you didn't know.

Of course I knew. In the time of the letter to the Corinthians, that good news was largely spoken, not written.

Besides, they taught the Gospel, because they were the ones who wrote it.

That point cannot be proven and scholarship doesn't place much confidence in the attribution.

come on man, make some sense.

Right back at ya.

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by sojourner

My argument is that the Bible doesn't say what you believe it to say, based upon actual scholarship and research.

Because you obviously don't know what you're talking about when it comes to biblical scholarship.

The gospels were not written when Paul wrote that statement.

Your biblical scholarship certainly means it did not teach basic vocabulary.

"keep to what is written" means the same as " remain or continue on what is written"
how can your scholarship explain that this what " keep to what is written, also refer to the nicene creed"

I'd rather be called dumb than to have your reasoning...

By the way, The gospel weren't written yet during the time of people, because it was in the process of being written. oops let me guess your scholarship doesn't say so.

Originally Posted by sojourner

and this after my having taken at least 8 college and graduate courses in the Bible...holding a perfect gradepoint average.

Your perfect GPA definitely does not include reading comprehension. explain how "keep to that which is written" could mean "refer to the nicene creed too?

Originally Posted by sojourner

I don't use verses to support my claims, because the verses in question are what we're dealing with. Proof texting is very poor scholarship, because IT DOESN'T WORK. The scope of my "opinion" is limited only by the blinders you choose to wear, not by my lack of scholarship. "Casting pearls before swine" leaps to mind here.

The pearls refer to the word of God, as as i can recall i am the one who persistently threw "pearls" at you. who is the swine now?

Originally Posted by sojourner

I'm not seeking to "shake Biblical fact." I seek to support Biblical evidence with scholarship and reason. What I hope to shake is the hopelessly abysmal line of reasoning you present with regard to the Bible.

What I reject is not what the Bible says, but what you think it says.

Of course I knew. In the time of the letter to the Corinthians, that good news was largely spoken, not written.

That point cannot be proven and scholarship doesn't place much confidence in the attribution.

Right back at ya.

fine fine, i will send a fifth grade teacher to talk to you...

[DavyCrocket2003]

I think Sojourner's argument makes perfect sense. How can thinking about the Bible and its context in an attempt to understant it better be a bad thing? And where does Sojourner ever even mention the Nicene Creed? I'm having a hard time following your logic USS BigD. I don't think insults will help. We're all rational, thinking creatures. We all have pretty good reasons for the things we believe. Maybe we should all make more of an effort to understand each other? Maybe?

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by DavyCrocket2003

I think Sojourner's argument makes perfect sense. How can thinking about the Bible and its context in an attempt to understant it better be a bad thing? And where does Sojourner ever even mention the Nicene Creed? I'm having a hard time following your logic USS BigD. I don't think insults will help. We're all rational, thinking creatures. We all have pretty good reasons for the things we believe. Maybe we should all make more of an effort to understand each other? Maybe?

he did mention the nicene creed, in one of the 4 threads we are sparring with eachother.

In a nutshell, i read the bible, interpret it as it is written. and sojourner interprets it the way his creed or council taught him to.

so is that sane? reading comprehension focuses on the material being read... period!

[Captain Civic]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

In a nutshell, i read the bible, interpret it as it is written. and sojourner interprets it the way his creed or council taught him to.

I don't know why you can't understand this.

The Gospel was originally spread by word of mouth and actions.

A standardised NT was not instantly available at the resurrection of Christ.

Can you understand, then, if you take these things to be true, that it is important (perhaps even necessary) to take such cultural situations and understandings into consideration when reading the NT?

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by Captain Civic

I don't know why you can't understand this.

The Gospel was originally spread by word of mouth and actions.

A standardised NT was not instantly available at the resurrection of Christ.

Can you understand, then, if you take these things to be true, that it is important (perhaps even necessary) to take such cultural situations and understandings into consideration when reading the NT?

Granting without accepting.

If Paul said " we, the apsotles were sent last." man, what ever cultural situations you want to consider, these statement can never mean someone came next.

Paul said " keep to that which is written" this further makes the " the apostles beings ent last as absolute. what ever cultural situation people may want to consider, these statement can never mean refer to another thing like the nicene creed.

That is my point. i do not wish to deviate from what is written from the scripture.