Biblical Mary!

[jimb]

They were Christians before the Gospels and Epistles were written. If they can be Christians without those things, why do you propose the Bible as the ultimate source if they hadn't access to it as the NT hadn't been written?

It's not a trick question, I would like to know.

The answer is that they had Christ in person! (With the exception of Paul, who met Christ directly after His resurrection). Nobody needs any written evidence of s/he has the actual person in front of them. John wrote clearly about this experience.

1 John 1:1-3, "We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us—what we have seen and heard we also declare to you so that you also may have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ."

John 20:26-29, "A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 

[Rival]

The answer is that they had Christ in person! (With the exception of Paul, who met Christ directly after His resurrection). Nobody needs any written evidence of s/he has the actual person in front of them. John wrote clearly about this experience.

1 John 1:1-3, "We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us—what we have seen and heard we also declare to you so that you also may have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ."

John 20:26-29, "A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

But what about those who listened to Paul and the Apostles and converted? Those who were Christians in the 1st century?

 

[jimb]

But what about those who listened to Paul and the Apostles and converted? Those who were Christians in the 1st century?

I don't understand what you want. You wrote this earlier: "They were Christians before the Gospels and Epistles were written. If they can be Christians without those things, why do you propose the Bible as the ultimate source if they hadn't access to it as the NT hadn't been written?" and I replied, giving an example from 1 John.

Then you wrote "What about those who listened to Paul and the Apostles and converted?" They had access to both the Bible (Old Testament) and the Epistles, as well as hearing from the apostles and others directly. (Obviously, the NT canon hadn't been created yet; they received the epistles directly).

The written word of God has existed for thousands of years and, aside from the messages that it contains, serves as a standard against which a person can judge what s/he has heard and read. There are, and always have been, false preachers!

Here is what Paul wrote to the Christians in Galatia...

Galatians 1:6-12 (with my emphases), "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

 

[Rival]

I don't understand what you want. You wrote this earlier: "They were Christians before the Gospels and Epistles were written. If they can be Christians without those things, why do you propose the Bible as the ultimate source if they hadn't access to it as the NT hadn't been written?" and I replied, giving an example from 1 John.

Then you wrote "What about those who listened to Paul and the Apostles and converted?" They had access to both the Bible (Old Testament) and the Epistles, as well as hearing from the apostles and others directly. (Obviously, the NT canon hadn't been created yet; they received the epistles directly).

The written word of God has existed for thousands of years and, aside from the messages that it contains, serves as a standard against which a person can judge what s/he has heard and read. There are, and always have been, false preachers!

Here is what Paul wrote to the Christians in Galatia...

Galatians 1:6-12 (with my emphases), "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

There were many small house churches which had no access to any written materials, nor could read them, far more than larger churches; often led by slaves, women, and other unwanteds. From the death of Christ to the creation of the Canon, not all Churches had access to all materials, or even some, we surely include them as Christians?

Neither Paul nor the Evangelists thought they were writing scripture, either.

Otherwise you are saying illiterate communities cannot be Christian, which was the majority and is still a lot of people today.

You are saying that Christianity is a book, not a faith in Christ.

 

[metis]

Obviously, Mary is clearly not special; just the opposite!

John 19[26] When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
[27] Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And??? Which is more significant? Listening to His mother (and saying "my time has not yet come") or stating "who is my mother" later in His ministry?

I'm pointing out the contradiction. Obviously both cannot be true, so you have to ask yourself, which is more likely? On the one hand you have a story of a miracle (highly unlikely) but in which he respects the request of his mother (highly likely). On the other hand, you have an incident where he completely disrespects his mother, despite being a Torah observing Jew and believing it is a commandment to honor your father and mother (highly unlikely). Remember that the gospels are collections of legends about Jesus. It is quite possible that neither incident ever took place.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There were many small house churches who had no access to any written materials, nor could read them, far more than larger churches; often led by slaves, women, and other unwanteds. From the death of Christ to the creation of the Canon, not all Churches had access to all materials, or even some, we surely include them as Christians?

Neither Paul nor the Evangelists thought they were writing scripture, either.

Otherwise you are saying illiterate communities cannot be Christian, which was the majority and is still a lot of people today.

You are saying that Christianity is a book, not a faith in Christ.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but just would like to add a wee bit. These house churches had presbyters ordained by the laying on of hands. The presbyters were chosen by the Apostles for their trustworthiness in passing on the gospel. While I can't know specifics, I'm sure that one of the things the Apostles looked for in Presbyters was literacy, since the study of the Tanakh was an important feature of the new religion.

 

[Rival]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but just would like to add a wee bit. These house churches had presbyters ordained by the laying on of hands. The presbyters were chosen by the Apostles for their trustworthiness in passing on the gospel. While I can't know specifics, I'm sure that one of the things the Apostles looked for in Presbyters was literacy, since the study of the Tanakh was an important feature of the new religion.

We do know, though, that slaves were ordained and highly unlikely to be able to read.

I think literacy would have been desirable but given the marginal nature of the early Church, probably not always doable.

Given the Gospels were not written until later, I'm not sure it seems a primary focus for them.

Edit: As well, Luke's Gospel, usually theorised to be aimed at non-Jews, essentially gets rid of most Tanakic material as being meaningless to them, as they wouldn't have understood the allusions. This suggests they're not reading it and apparently don't much care to, which makes some sense.

 

[jimb]

I'm pointing out the contradiction. Obviously both cannot be true, so you have to ask yourself, which is more likely? On the one hand you have a story of a miracle (highly unlikely) but in which he respects the request of his mother (highly likely). On the other hand, you have an incident where he completely disrespects his mother, despite being a Torah observing Jew and believing it is a commandment to honor your father and mother (highly unlikely). Remember that the gospels are collections of legends about Jesus. It is quite possible that neither incident ever took place.

Which other parts of the Bible do you consider untrue? Please be specific.

 

[jimb]

We do know, though, that slaves were ordained and highly unlikely to be able to read.

I think literacy would have been desirable but given the marginal nature of the early Church, probably not always doable.

Given the Gospels were not written until later, I'm not sure it seems a primary focus for them.

Edit: As well, Luke's Gospel, usually theorised to be aimed at non-Jews, essentially gets rid of most Tanakic material as being meaningless to them, as they wouldn't have understood the allusions. This suggests they're not reading it and apparently don't much care to, which makes some sense.

Slaves had different status in NT days. They were not compensated with money but some held very responsible positions, e.g, scribes.

Paul referred to himself as a slave, e.g., Romans 1:1, NET: "From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God." ("servant" in other translations). The Greek word is δοῦλος; the terms were synonymous.)

Ephesians 6:6, "Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

1 Peter 2:16, "Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves."

Your assumption in "Edit" has no validity. The tanakh was read in synagogues, which were attended by Jews and Gentiles.

 

[Anne1]

Slaves had different status in NT days. They were not compensated with money but some held very responsible positions, e.g, scribes.

Paul referred to himself as a slave, e.g., Romans 1:1, NET: "From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God." ("servant" in other translations). The Greek word is δοῦλος; the terms were synonymous.)

Ephesians 6:6, "Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

1 Peter 2:16, "Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves."

Sorry, but I beg to differ. Slaves who were literate scribes were few and far between. Vast numbers of slaves worked on the latifundia -farms - of the elite. Many worked in chains. Some latifundia had as many as 4,000 slaves. They worked until they died of exhaustion, almost never of old age. Other slaves worked the mines, and the work there was so horrendous that many were dead within four years. Slaves, especially pretty children, were forced to work in brothels.

Estimates of the slave population run from one third to one fourth of the population. Most toiled in brutal situations. Seneca once met with a slave he had known as a child. They were the same age, but the slave was sick and broken and greatly aged. The Stoic Seneca burst out laughing.

Paul calls himself a slave in a symbolic way. It is very clear Paul was not a slave

.

 

[Anne1]

I'm pointing out the contradiction. Obviously both cannot be true, so you have to ask yourself, which is more likely? On the one hand you have a story of a miracle (highly unlikely) but in which he respects the request of his mother (highly likely). On the other hand, you have an incident where he completely disrespects his mother, despite being a Torah observing Jew and believing it is a commandment to honor your father and mother (highly unlikely). Remember that the gospels are collections of legends about Jesus. It is quite possible that neither incident ever took place.

Sorry, but I disagree. There is no contradiction. Jesus said that all his disciples were now his mother and brother; it was a breathtaking expansion of his family to include all who believed in him, absolutely not a putdown of his mother;

Please explain which parts of the Gospels are "legends".

 

[jimb]

Sorry, but I beg to differ. Slaves who were literate scribes were few and far between. Vast numbers of slaves worked on the latifundia -farms - of the elite. Many worked in chains. Some latifundia had as many as 4,000 slaves. They worked until they died of exhaustion, almost never of old age. Other slaves worked the mines, and the work there was so horrendous that many were dead within four years. Slaves, especially pretty children, were forced to work in brothels.

Estimates of the slave population run from one third to one fourth of the population. Most toiled in brutal situations. Seneca once met with a slave he had known as a child. They were the same age, but the slave was sick and broken and greatly aged. The Stoic Seneca burst out laughing.

Paul calls himself a slave in a symbolic way. It is very clear Paul was not a slave


.

I was obviously not referring to all slaves. However, some were in responsible positions, as in the parable of the master who gave his slaves money to handle. Anyone who was "employed" was a slave.

Paul saw himself as an actual slave of God. He did what he was told. Period.

 

[jimb]

That i

Sorry, but I disagree. There is no contradiction. Jesus said that all his disciples were now his mother and brother; it was a breathtaking expansion of his family to include all who believed in him, absolutely not a putdown of his mother;

Please explain which parts of the Gospels are "legends".

That is wishful thinking. Jesus did not say "these are also my mother and brothers".

 

[Anne1]

That i

That is wishful thinking. Jesus did not say "these are also my mother and brothers".

Hi, you need to read the entire of Matthew 12.

In Matthew 12 Jesus is asked, and answers in may ways, who will enter the kingdom? When Jesus is told that his mother and brothers are outside, he makes a stunning reply. That all who believe in him will enter the kingdom. That is, not only the chosen people, the Jews, but Samaritans and Gentiles as well. The sacred covenant God had with His people the Jews, is now expanded to include all people.

 

[Anne1]

I think literacy would have been desirable but given the marginal nature of the early Church, probably not always doable.

Given the Gospels were not written until later, I'm not sure it seems a primary focus for them.

Second Temple Jews read the scriptures aloud during their services. We have now found many ancient synagogues in Israel and they had a place to hold their scriptures, a very telling point. Jesus read aloud from the scriptures during a service.

From the scanty information we have, it appears that the early Christians followed this practice. By the time of Justin Martyr the Gospels were read aloud.

Although literacy was not very common, at least 10-25% of the population could read (writing was a different matter). Scribes, tax collectors, many ordinary people could read.

The early Christians used the codex, and may have been responsible for it's popularity.

 

[Rival]

Second Temple Jews read the scriptures aloud during their services. We have now found many ancient synagogues in Israel and they had a place to hold their scriptures, a very telling point. Jesus read aloud from the scriptures during a service.

From the scanty information we have, it appears that the early Christians followed this practice. By the time of Justin Martyr the Gospels were read aloud.

Although literacy was not very common, at least 10-25% of the population could read (writing was a different matter). Scribes, tax collectors, many ordinary people could read.

The early Christians used the codex, and may have been responsible for it's popularity.

This is true, but if the leader of a house church were to be illiterate this wouldn't be the case. In the early years before the Gospels, the main theme was preaching; so I think we can imagine these priests as giving sermons based on the word of the Apostles, current martyrs etc. I think both forms would be happening, both literate and illiterate churches, but knowing what we know about the demographics of the Church it seems most would have been illiterate.

It seems the Tradition was more important than the written word at this point, which I'd argue is still the case for Christianity.

 

[jimb]

Hi, you need to read the entire of Matthew 12.

In Matthew 12 Jesus is asked, and answers in may ways, who will enter the kingdom? When Jesus is told that his mother and brothers are outside, he makes a stunning reply. That all who believe in him will enter the kingdom. That is, not only the chosen people, the Jews, but Samaritans and Gentiles as well. The sacred covenant God had with His people the Jews, is now expanded to include all people.

You realize, of course, that chapters and verses were added to the NT LONG AFTER it was written.

Matthew chapter 12 discusses:

Picking grain on the Sabbath

Healing a man with a withered hand.

Isaiah's prophesy about God's chosen servant

Jesus and Beelzebul

A tree and its fruit

The sign of Jonah

The return of the unclean spirit

and finally, the true kindred of Jesus (5 out of 50 verses)

Here are verses 46-50 (with my emphasis): While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” But to the one who had told him this, Jesus replied, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

There is nothing in Matthew 12 that says that "all who believe in him will enter the kingdom". There is no reference to the chosen people, the Jews, Samaritans or Gentiles. And it certainly doesn't say anything about the sacred covenant God had with His people the Jews, is now expanded to include all people.

Again, Jesus clearly states who is "family" is: His disciples, not His family of origin: His natural mother and brothers.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Please explain which parts of the Gospels are "legends".

The entirety of the Gospels are legends. Jesus never wrote anything, nor are the gospels written by eye witnesses. Now, legends often have a bit of history as their base. The difficulty arises that we cannot always know where the history ends and the fiction begins. Certainly, some stories are more likely than others. What are the odds of a virgin birth? Zero. What are the odds that Jesus taught to keep the commandments? Quite high.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The presbyters were chosen by the Apostles for their trustworthiness in passing on the gospel.

Are you referring to the 12 apostles? What is your evidence?