Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I've been studying various theologians on YouTube and most of them rightly point out that Mark, the earliest gospel, never has Jesus once hinting that in order to be "saved" one must believe on him as Lord and savior.
GINOLJC, to all
Addressing the OP only,
as Saviour, Mark 10:45 "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many”. Ransom means redemption, and to redeem, one must be a redeemer. and as a redeemer, he SAVES. this is supportive of the others gospels also, Titus 2:13 "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works”. now lets see this redemption by believing in Jesus Christ. Mark 1:14 "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel”. Now the question, what is the Gospel that one must believe?, answer, Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”. the whole book of Mark, just as Matthews, as well as Luke and John is geared for one to believe the Gospel ofJesus Christ. the whole point of the gospels is about our redemption of the SAVIOUR of the world, who is Lord and God. each one record the coming SAVIOUR. supportive scripture, , Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you. 5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. 6 Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert". when did all of this happen?. when the Lord God JESUS, himself came in flesh and blood, who is savior and Lord. again Marks gospel, "repent ye, and believe the gospel”,(Mark 1:15c). the whole gospel is of Jesus the Christ, who is Lord and Saviour. it is the Son of Man, Jesus the Christ which is the gospel of Mark.
The concept of believing in the messenger as opposed to the message is the concoction of the developing professional clergy starting even before the turn of the century. It is much easier to construct a religion around a person than around a concept of living in community and how to restore broken community. As Jerwade has said, Jesus ended religious control, men have been trying to get it back. Belief in the message means actually trying to live it and that can be inconvenient for those who find love difficult.
You heretic Thrill
The salvation of God is not what we are told it is. God's salvation is God being an ever present help with his over abounding grace in time of need, and our need is salvation in this life of vanity we have been subjected too. To experience it requires faith in it.
The religious establishment muddied the waters of the whole salvation thing, turned the law from themselves and applied to those they condemned, and prevented others from entering in to it, Jesus came and set it all right, then the religious establishment repeated history again, but came back stronger against all the things that pertain to life and godliness by going beyond the previous systems distortion of the truth and it self righteousness and hypocrisy by introducing the threat of eternal hell upon all who do not accept their beliefs.
>>>>You heretic Thrill
Yes, I know. Reputations stick to you like mud, don't they?
You're quite right. One thing is for sure: the salvation Jesus talked about is definitely NOT the salvation we have today. And that is to be expected, frankly, because everything man touches, even the salvation of Jesus, turns to dirt and filth simply because men cannot help from injecting their own religious biases and politics into everything they have a stake in personally as well as financially.
Sadly, we have no clue what the original plan of salvation Jesus offered is, so tainted has it become because of jerks like Tertullian and Augustine. I'd go further: I'd call them spawn of the devil--And I don't even believe in the devil!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The opinions of liberal scholarship notwithstanding, Ephesians is not Pseudepigraphical. If it were it never would have been accepted into the canon. Conservative scholarship recognizes Ephesians as Pauline and dates it to around A.D. 60.
This is a he said/she said.
Wiki says:
Quote:
Summary of the reasons for thinking Ephesians is not by Paul:
The language and style are different. Ephesians contains 40 new words, e.g. 1:3 "heavenly places"; "family, or fatherhood" (3:15). 1:19 has four different words for "power"; Ephesians and Colossians use a different word for "reconcile" from Paul's word (Col 1:20, 22; Eph 2:16). And they both use many very long sentences, e.g. 1:3-14; 1:15-23; 3:1-7; 4:11-16; 6:14-20. Also Col 1:9-20.
Ephesians copies Colossians at many places. Eph has 155 verses, 73 of which are copied from Col: e.g. Eph 4:1-2 = Col 3:12-13. Eph 5:19-2 = Col 3:16-17, Eph 6:21-22 = Col 4:7-8.
Ephesians takes many key ideas from Colossians. Wisdom, mystery. The word of truth. Gospel of salvation. Saints of God.
Ephesians also refers to most of the other letters of Paul. In many ways it seems like a summary of Paul's ideas, written by a disciple of his, and brought up to date for the Church of his own time.
Metaphors, or illustrations in Paul are turned into actual objective realities in Ephesians (and sometimes in Colossians also). E.g. faith, gospel, word of God, reconciliation, salvation, human resurrection and glorification, the Church as the Body of Christ, Minister, Saints of God.
Ephesians shows that the Church is becoming an advanced and powerful universal institution (rather like the Church today). In Paul's time there was no universal Church in that sense, but only informal gatherings of individual believing communities.
Ephesians contains no mention of charismatic gifts.
Ephesians shows Jesus acting on his own account and by his own authority without making explicit that he is acting on God's behalf and with God's blessing; in Paul's other letters, this is more explicit.
That's quite a laundry list of observations that point to the lack of authorship of Paul and the people who wrote that are also experts alongside your list of conservative fundamentalist scholars who have a stake in maintaining the integrity of the Bible as it stands today.
And your statement that if it was adopted by a church council in 350 AD or thereabouts then it must be absolutely authentic is a totally bogus argument and you should know that. In 350 AD scholarship was in its infancy; this rabble of clowns from 20 different faiths and creeds all jockeying for top position had absolutely no idea what was real and what was fake, in comparison to today with the research tools modern theologians and historians have at their disposal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
As for Mark 16:9-20 that does not seem to be original to Mark, but was added later. But even assuming for the sake of argument that is original, the Bible Knowledge Commentary states the following.
Though the New Testament writers generally assume that under normal circumstances each believer will be baptized, 16:16 does not mean that baptism is a necessary requirement for personal salvation. The second half of the verse indicates by contrast that one who does not believe the gospel will be condemned by God (implied) in the day of final judgment (cf. 9:43-48). The basis for condemnation is unbelief, not the lack of any ritual observance. Baptism is not mentioned because unbelief precludes one's giving a confession of faith while being baptized by water. Thus the only requirement for personally appropriating God's salvation is faith in Him (cf. Rom. 3:21-28; Eph. 2:8-10). [The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, p. 196]
If you're going to admit that Mark 16:9-20 was added by someone other than Mark, then you have to agree that this part of it is a forgery and therefore not inspired by the Holy Spirit. You can't have it both ways as may try to saying, "Well, yeah it's a forgery but it's a forgery inspired by the Holy Spirit." I really don't think the Holy Spirit would have anything to do with something as dishonest as a forgery and a tampering of what Mark originally wrote.
It's a lose/lose, Mike:
* if Mark 16:9-20 is a forgery then the complete Bible is NOT the inspired inerrant word of God
* if Mark 9-20 is authentic and Matthew and Luke copied from it as we know they did, then there was absolutely no reason for them not to include such a foundational theology as Mark 16:16 : "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned."in their own gospels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Regarding your comment, ''Paul never says non-belief in Jesus lands you in hell far as I know.'', Paul wrote the following in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9.
2 Thess. 1:6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7] and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8] dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9] These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,
The reference to obeying the gospel refers to the command to believe in Jesus for eternal life. The command to believe in Christ is stated in Acts 16:31.
2 Thessalonians is another pseudoephegraphical epistle of Paul according to most scholars, isn't it? And the main reason scholars believe it was written by someone other than Paul is because in all his other epistles Paul talks of all being brought to salvation in Christ Jesus, while this is the only passage in all of the epistles, authentic AND pseudoephegraphical, where Paul talks of eternal torment. I'd say that's a pretty damning indicting against it's Pauline authorship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Whether you think it makes sense or not, the fact is that each gospel did in fact have a different emphasis. And as far as Luke goes, he wrote the book of Acts and so does address believing in Christ for salvation.
And aside from scholarship, whether conservative or liberal, the fact is that the Bible, all of it, is the Word of God and is truthful in all that it says. If you don't believe that then there really isn't anything more to say.
Again, Mike I point out the central thesis of my OP: If you're going to admit that Jesus said something as important as "You MUST believe in me in order to have eternal life. Whosoever doesn't believe in me as Lord as savior my Father will damn to eternal hell", then certainly Matthew, Mark and Luke had to know about this foundational teaching, perhaps the most important teaching Jesus ever said. And if they knew about WHY did they neglect to include such a vital part of Jesus' teachings in their own gospels?
Paul and Silas were singing the praises of God, no doubt singing songs of salvation and deliverance and guess what salvation came to them too, for God is an ever present help in time of trouble and being in prison back then for being innocent wasn't much fun without TBN being broadcasted via cable tv and the luxury many rightly convicted today have.
You are my hiding place; you will protect me from trouble and surround me with songs of deliverance.
They were signing, though we do not know the words. Both they and the jailer were already saved from the earthquake, so his question had to be with a different type of salvation. Paul had been there for several days and preaching, so the jailer likely heard him preach. That is how he would know to ask a Jew about salvation. Not an immediate conversion, knowing nothing about Jesus at that point if he had not hear of it before, so a decision based on knowledge.
They were signing, though we do not know the words. Both they and the jailer were already saved from the earthquake, so his question had to be with a different type of salvation. Paul had been there for several days and preaching, so the jailer likely heard him preach. That is how he would know to ask a Jew about salvation. Not an immediate conversion, knowing nothing about Jesus at that point if he had not hear of it before, so a decision based on knowledge.
I never said anything about the jailer being saved from the earthquake, although i am convinced salvation includes that too if you have faith to believe it. Reread my post again that you first responded to.
Yes, I know. Reputations stick to you like mud, don't they?
You're quite right. One thing is for sure: the salvation Jesus talked about is definitely NOT the salvation we have today. And that is to be expected, frankly, because everything man touches, even the salvation of Jesus, turns to dirt and filth simply because men cannot help from injecting their own religious biases and politics into everything they have a stake in personally as well as financially.
Sadly, we have no clue what the original plan of salvation Jesus offered is, so tainted has it become because of jerks like Tertullian and Augustine. I'd go further: I'd call them spawn of the devil--And I don't even believe in the devil!!!!
The Bible which was written by prophets and by apostles of Jesus and by close associates of the apostles says that Satan does exist.
Jesus said that eternal life was by believing in Him, and not by works (John 6:27-29).
Quote:
This is a he said/she said.
Wiki says:
Summary of the reasons for thinking Ephesians is not by Paul:•The language and style are different. Ephesians contains 40 new words, e.g. 1:3 "heavenly places"; "family, or fatherhood" (3:15). 1:19 has four different words for "power"; Ephesians and Colossians use a different word for "reconcile" from Paul's word (Col 1:20, 22; Eph 2:16). And they both use many very long sentences, e.g. 1:3-14; 1:15-23; 3:1-7; 4:11-16; 6:14-20. Also Col 1:9-20.
•Ephesians copies Colossians at many places. Eph has 155 verses, 73 of which are copied from Col: e.g. Eph 4:1-2 = Col 3:12-13. Eph 5:19-2 = Col 3:16-17, Eph 6:21-22 = Col 4:7-8.
•Ephesians takes many key ideas from Colossians. Wisdom, mystery. The word of truth. Gospel of salvation. Saints of God.
•Ephesians also refers to most of the other letters of Paul. In many ways it seems like a summary of Paul's ideas, written by a disciple of his, and brought up to date for the Church of his own time.
•Metaphors, or illustrations in Paul are turned into actual objective realities in Ephesians (and sometimes in Colossians also). E.g. faith, gospel, word of God, reconciliation, salvation, human resurrection and glorification, the Church as the Body of Christ, Minister, Saints of God.
•Ephesians shows that the Church is becoming an advanced and powerful universal institution (rather like the Church today). In Paul's time there was no universal Church in that sense, but only informal gatherings of individual believing communities.
•Ephesians contains no mention of charismatic gifts.
•Ephesians shows Jesus acting on his own account and by his own authority without making explicit that he is acting on God's behalf and with God's blessing; in Paul's other letters, this is more explicit.
That's quite a laundry list of observations that point to the lack of authorship of Paul and the people who wrote that are also experts alongside your list of conservative fundamentalist scholars who have a stake in maintaining the integrity of the Bible as it stands today.
None of those are valid reasons for denying the Pauline authorship of Ephesians. Why shouldn't there be certain similarities as well as certain differences in his letters?
Regarding Ephesians, J. Hampton Keathley III writes,
In recent years, however, critics have turned to internal grounds to challenge this unanimous ancient tradition. It has been argued that the vocabulary and style are different from other Pauline Epistles, but this overlooks Paul’s flexibility under different circumstances (cf. Rom. and 2 Cor.). The theology of Ephesians in some ways reflects later development, but this must be attributed to Paul’s own growth and meditation on the church as the body of Christ. Since the epistle clearly names the author in the opening verse, it is not necessary to theorize that Ephesians was written by one of Paul’s pupils or admirers, such as Timothy, Luke, Tychicus, or Onesimus. [Bolding mine] https://bible.org/seriespage/pauline-epistles
Quote:
And your statement that if it was adopted by a church council in 350 AD or thereabouts then it must be absolutely authentic is a totally bogus argument and you should know that. In 350 AD scholarship was in its infancy; this rabble of clowns from 20 different faiths and creeds all jockeying for top position had absolutely no idea what was real and what was fake, in comparison to today with the research tools modern theologians and historians have at their disposal.
I didn't make any such statement. What I said in post #19 was,
In his article on Ephesians, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace presents the arguments both for and against the Pauline authorship of Ephesians and himself accepts the Epistle as Pauline, and quoting Werner Georg Kümmel (1905–1995) notes that “without question Ephesians was extraordinarily well attested in the early Church.” - https://bible.org/seriespage/ephesia...nt-and-outline
As I also said, Dr. Wallace gave the arguments both for and against Pauline authorship.
Quote:
If you're going to admit that Mark 16:9-20 was added by someone other than Mark, then you have to agree that this part of it is a forgery and therefore not inspired by the Holy Spirit. You can't have it both ways as may try to saying, "Well, yeah it's a forgery but it's a forgery inspired by the Holy Spirit." I really don't think the Holy Spirit would have anything to do with something as dishonest as a forgery and a tampering of what Mark originally wrote.
It's a lose/lose, Mike:
* if Mark 16:9-20 is a forgery then the complete Bible is NOT the inspired inerrant word of God
* if Mark 9-20 is authentic and Matthew and Luke copied from it as we know they did, then there was absolutely no reason for them not to include such a foundational theology as Mark 16:16 : "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned."in their own gospels.
I never said or implied that the ending of Mark (16:9-20) was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Don't put words in my mouth.
And inspiration refers to the original autographs only. Not to the manuscript copies. The human authors of the books of the Bible were superintended by the Holy Spirit so that what they wrote was without error. Inspiration does not apply to the scribes who copied from existing copies. And yet, the variations in the manuscript copies do not affect any doctrine.
Quote:
Quote:
2 Thessalonians is another pseudoephegraphical epistle of Paul according to most scholars, isn't it? And the main reason scholars believe it was written by someone other than Paul is because in all his other epistles Paul talks of all being brought to salvation in Christ Jesus, while this is the only passage in all of the epistles, authentic AND pseudoephegraphical, where Paul talks of eternal torment. I'd say that's a pretty damning indicting against it's Pauline authorship.
You put more faith in the opinions of modern liberal scholarship then you do the Word of God. None of the Epistles are pseudepigraphical .
As with Ephesians, arguments both for and against the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians are presented in the following article.
The authenticity of the New Testament Epistles which bear Paul's name were never questioned by the early church.
Quote:
Again, Mike I point out the central thesis of my OP: If you're going to admit that Jesus said something as important as "You MUST believe in me in order to have eternal life. Whosoever doesn't believe in me as Lord as savior my Father will damn to eternal hell", then certainly Matthew, Mark and Luke had to know about this foundational teaching, perhaps the most important teaching Jesus ever said. And if they knew about WHY did they neglect to include such a vital part of Jesus' teachings in their own gospels?
I've already told you that each gospel writer had a different purpose in writing his gospel account. Regardless of why Matthew and Mark didn't make any references to believing in Christ for salvation, the fact that you must believe in Christ to be saved was known to the early church as evidenced by the fact that Luke states that fact in Acts 16:31 which as stated is accepted by conservative scholars as having been written around A.D. 60-62. And by the fact that Paul states it in Ephesians 2:8-9. Ephesians was written around A.D. 60.
Now I've spent enough time on this. You seem to be satisfied with and to prefer the opinions of modern skeptical liberal scholarship, so believe what you want.
The concept of believing in the messenger as opposed to the message is the concoction of the developing professional clergy starting even before the turn of the century. It is much easier to construct a religion around a person than around a concept of living in community and how to restore broken community. As Jerwade has said, Jesus ended religious control, men have been trying to get it back. Belief in the message means actually trying to live it and that can be inconvenient for those who find love difficult.
Amen, nate. The problem with religious leadership has been their abdication of any responsibility to "study to show themselves approved" before trying to lead others. They have deliberately remained blind to the accumulated knowledge of 2000+ years in the name of blind faith in God as understood by our ignorant savage and barbaric ancestors . . . thereby "becoming the blind leading the blind." They have made a mockery of Christ's Gospel retaining the carnal "milk" and never seeking to find the spiritual "solid food."
So I've been studying various theologians on YouTube and most of them rightly point out that Mark, the earliest gospel, never has Jesus once hinting that in order to be "saved" one must believe on him as Lord and savior.
Matthew and Luke focus more on trying to make this itinerant rabbi named Jesus more god-like by making him born of a virgin, the son of God etc, but again I am not aware of any place in the two gospels that Jesus says, "Believe on me and you will be saved".
Actually, it isn't until we get to John and Acts that we have Jesus and Paul saying, "Whosoever believes in me has eternal life, those who don't believe on me are condemned already..., if you confess with your mouth and believe God raised him from the dead you will be saved, believe on the lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (Paul)
So how is it that Matthew, Mark and Luke never once mention believing in Jesus as a criteria? Only John has this critical element vital to our salvation. Sounds like it wasn't part of the original message Jesus came bearing and only later evolved as a sort of "threat" of eternal punishment inflicted to threaten pagans to convert to Christianity or else, as they were already very familiar with the concept of eternal hellfire from the Greek myths.
I'd be interested in hearing some more about this evolution from no belief in Jesus to absolute belief in Jesus. Can anyone fill in some of the gaps as to how this dogma evolved?
Intelligent, thoughtful replies only please. No insults and shouts of "heretic" appreciated.
To answer your question; FIRST you must understand the audience that each of the original Gospels were written to.
YOUTUBE is not the place to find the answers! Once you dissect each of the gospels and understand them fully - then will all of the frivolous threads cease.
Jesus is the central focus point of every book in the bible.
Matthew wrote his (good news) to the Jews - explaining that this indeed was the Messiah that the Jews were promised.
38 times he quotes the Old Testament 'As it was written".
Mark wrote (Peter's good news) and depicted Christ as a Servant to both Jew & Gentile. His audience was mainly gentile people's because he had to keep explaining Jewish customs and meanings.
Luke was a physician & lawyer; He wrote in the purest & highest form of Greek into two volumes. His audience was mainly Gentile also.
Luke depicted Christ as a man with 'supernatural powers'
John's Genealogy of Christ leaves us no doubt that Jesus Christ was God in the Flesh. John 1:1 & John 1:14
98 TIMES in John's gospel - we are told what will happen if we believe in Jesus Christ!
Every Word of God is profitable for instruction - The trouble with some is they won't take the time to understand and thus question God's supernatural Word(s).
He wrote the book - Don't add to it or take away from it. Those are stark warnings - BE NOT DECEIVED!!
as Saviour, Mark 10:45 "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many”. Ransom means redemption, and to redeem, one must be a redeemer. and as a redeemer, he SAVES. this is supportive of the others gospels also, Titus 2:13 "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works”. now lets see this redemption by believing in Jesus Christ. Mark 1:14 "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel”. Now the question, what is the Gospel that one must believe?, answer, Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”. the whole book of Mark, just as Matthews, as well as Luke and John is geared for one to believe the Gospel ofJesus Christ. the whole point of the gospels is about our redemption of the SAVIOUR of the world, who is Lord and God. each one record the coming SAVIOUR. supportive scripture, , Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you. 5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. 6 Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert". when did all of this happen?. when the Lord God JESUS, himself came in flesh and blood, who is savior and Lord. again Marks gospel, "repent ye, and believe the gospel”,(Mark 1:15c). the whole gospel is of Jesus the Christ, who is Lord and Saviour. it is the Son of Man, Jesus the Christ which is the gospel of Mark.
101c, as soon as you say, "Ransom means redemption" you go off the rails with a subjective opinion, not an objective fact. We don't know how Jesus was using the word "ransom" simply because he didn't explain how his life would be a ransom. That's why we have four---count 'em, FOUR--theories of salvation and ransom is but one of them--the others are Christ Victorious, Satisfactionary, and Penal Substution, case you're interested. They're all different from one another and they can't all be right, can they?
I could go on but I'm running out the door right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atkutuq
To answer your question; FIRST you must understand the audience that each of the original Gospels were written to.
YOUTUBE is not the place to find the answers! Once you dissect each of the gospels and understand them fully - then will all of the frivolous threads cease.
Jesus is the central focus point of every book in the bible.
Matthew wrote his (good news) to the Jews - explaining that this indeed was the Messiah that the Jews were promised.
38 times he quotes the Old Testament 'As it was written".
Mark wrote (Peter's good news) and depicted Christ as a Servant to both Jew & Gentile. His audience was mainly gentile people's because he had to keep explaining Jewish customs and meanings.
Luke was a physician & lawyer; He wrote in the purest & highest form of Greek into two volumes. His audience was mainly Gentile also.
Luke depicted Christ as a man with 'supernatural powers'
John's Genealogy of Christ leaves us no doubt that Jesus Christ was God in the Flesh. John 1:1 & John 1:14
98 TIMES in John's gospel - we are told what will happen if we believe in Jesus Christ!
Every Word of God is profitable for instruction - The trouble with some is they won't take the time to understand and thus question God's supernatural Word(s).
He wrote the book - Don't add to it or take away from it. Those are stark warnings - BE NOT DECEIVED!!
Atkutuq, look: every apologist, that includes Mike555 and expat, no offense to either, they seem like nice guys, well one of them anyways.
But ALL apologists fall back on this old chestnut, including my favorite nut, Mack Slick of CARM that the gospels are all written to different audiences which explains the different points of views, not to mention all the errors, contractions, mistakes and outright frauds (thinking of Matthew concocting the flight to Egypt just to be able to say, "Out of Egypt have I called my son" which any Jewish Scholar will tell you, and the text plainly shows has absolutely nothing to do with a Messiah or Jesus).
I will repeat what I told Mike: John 3:16 is SO, SO, SO central to the gospel of salvation that there is no way not one, not two, but THREE of the four gospel writers would leave it out of their texts, I don't care what audience they're trying to reach!!!!
ALL AUDIENCES need to hear these vital words, "That whosoever does NOT believe in him shall perish in eternal flames". It would be spiritually criminal for three gospel writers to leave this vital fact out of their gospels. THE ONLY EXPLANATION which makes sense for why they didn't include it is because they didn't know about it because Jesus wasn't teaching it because it developed much later in church history as Christianity began to grow and spread.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 08-22-2014 at 07:53 PM..
The concept of believing in the messenger as opposed to the message is the concoction of the developing professional clergy starting even before the turn of the century. It is much easier to construct a religion around a person than around a concept of living in community and how to restore broken community. As Jerwade has said, Jesus ended religious control, men have been trying to get it back. Belief in the message means actually trying to live it and that can be inconvenient for those who find love difficult.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really don't think the Holy Spirit would have anything to do with something as dishonest as a forgery and a tampering of what Mark originally wrote. 
