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.
Looking back at the OP pointing up things that Jesus 'got wrong' about the Bible and relating that to the generally accepted view now that Pilate was not really the same as the fellow depicted in the gospels, and I have to comment again that the evidence is that there is a lot of story -telling going on in the gospels.
It isn't Jesus who got things wrong, but the evangelists who wrote Jesus' script. This ongoing idea that the Gospels record substantially what Jesus said and did is ubiquitously taken as a given, but such an assumption is unjustified.
The monumental contradictions and discrepancies are the clearest possible indication of textual invention.
Eusebius (like many theists) insists that the contradictions can easily be resolved. I have seen how he does it. He ignores them. He 'weaves them together' to form a coherent narrative and where the same event is described in such a different way that it beggars belief that both accounts are eyewitness, then they are presented as two different events.
It is an explanation of sorts but one which should not satisfy a reasonable person. With such an argument, three people telling discrepant or contradictory tales in court could be presented as telling the same story, only different bits of it.
It is not reasonable nor feasible and the only way the gospels will be really understood is to accept that four writers were working on them in different ways and they often disagreed or contradicted in what they wrote.
Once we understand that, it is possible to sort out these questions, problems and difficulties. Jesus on Abiathar and David and the shewbread is not speaking an astonishingly inept argument which would never fool the pharisees (though it was argued to me that any disagreement they might make would simply be left out by the four writers - dishonest to a man ) but is a rather poor argument made by a Greek Christian apologist to other gentiles who would be pretty uncritical, uniformed and in no position to do other than murmur 'Cor, yeah. That's a good argument. King David ate the temple bread, so the Sabbath doesn't matter.'
Which is what that passage (touched on in the OP) is intended to argue. That Jesus himself argued away the need to keep the Sabbath. Though Christians seem to regard it as important all over again, but that's ok, because (to them) the Christian sabbath is important but the Jewish one isn't.
Whoppers is making some good points about Pilate. The biblical portrayal of him just does not pass the test against all that is historically known of him, or the Romans use of things such as crucifixition.
Simply, Pilate was a typical Roman governor, who had no regard at all for Jewish sensitivities, and who's answer to to unarmed protesting or resisting crowds was brute force by sending in legions. As someone who regularly (and we know this historically) used brute force for crowd control, the Gospel's portrayal of him meekly acquiesing to the crowd just does not pass the snicker test.
Without getting too far into it, Jesus was probably targeted by Pilate, who saw him as dangerous, a revolutionary who was stirring up dissent and rebellious thoughts regarding Roman control. (which also has some merit in examining the reasons and manner why Romans would crucify Jews)
And Pilate was SO brutal that even the Romans thought he overdid it with his excesses - to the point that he was eventually recalled to some grim punishment, no doubt. Being sent to Judea was already a punishment for a wealthy and sophisticated Roman looking to advance, and it was considered the "boonies" to begin with. That's enough to make any procurator cranky. Pilate just happened to be more cranky than most heh heh!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Looking back at the OP pointing up things that Jesus 'got wrong' about the Bible and relating that to the generally accepted view now that Pilate was not really the same as the fellow depicted in the gospels, and I have to comment again that the evidence is that there is a lot of story -telling going on in the gospels.
It isn't Jesus who got things wrong, but the evangelists who wrote Jesus' script. This ongoing idea that the Gospels record substantially what Jesus said and did is ubiquitously taken as a given, but such an assumption is unjustified.
The monumental contradictions and discrepancies are the clearest possible indication of textual invention.
Or perhaps the oral tradition of the stories being passed down undergoing corruption. Most of the stories from the Gospels would have circulated this way, and oral tradition is notorious for embellishment, forgetfullness and other things. Take a standard story of who did what on such and such a day, give it a few generations of being told among peoples of different cultural and social backgrounds and languages and you're bound to get even more corruptions of the original stories. This is just how oral tradition works, and in the Greco-Roman period in Judea - which was a melting-pot of different peoples - this would have been even more so.
While there may have been some textual invention going on, I wouldn't fault them too much - they were, after all, dealing with the oral tradition and what it bequeated to them. None of the Gospels bear the author's name (these were added later traditionally to give them a little more "authority" to gain their entrance into the coveted 4 Gospels that the canonizers were shooting for), so we cannot fall back on the old claim that the authors were eye-witnesses. R. Brown writes briefly that
None of the Gospels mentions an author's name, and it is quite possible that none was actually written by the one whose name was attached to it at the end of the 2nd century (John Mark, companion of Paul and then of Peter; Matthew, one of the Twelve; Luke, companion of Paul; John, one of the Twelve).
(An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, 1997, pp. 7-8)
Their actual writing down is considered to have been late, judging from their content and the utter lack of citations of them from the Pauline (and other) letters. Paul seems unaware of many events narrated in the Gospels, probably because he had no access to any - only oral stories.
The textual invention that was going on can be seen best in what certain authors left out of the sources they were utilizing. One can compare Matthew and Luke synonomously against Mark and see what each one chose to leave out, and what they chose to retain. This can reveal a lot behind the minds of those who compiled Matthew and Luke, and the other books.
This makes them incredibly difficult to use as reliable historical witnesses, but makes them inredibly interesting as studies in four different views of Jesus - each one unique in it's own way. Is it possible to make a "harmony" of all four Gospels to get a more "complete" picture of Jesus' actual life? I don't think so, personally. It is in that instance that one is discarding the individual voices of the authors and making one's own "super-Gospel".
And Pilate was SO brutal that even the Romans thought he overdid it with his excesses - to the point that he was eventually recalled to some grim punishment, no doubt. Being sent to Judea was already a punishment for a wealthy and sophisticated Roman looking to advance, and it was considered the "boonies" to begin with. That's enough to make any procurator cranky. Pilate just happened to be more cranky than most heh heh!
Or perhaps the oral tradition of the stories being passed down undergoing corruption. Most of the stories from the Gospels would have circulated this way, and oral tradition is notorious for embellishment, forgetfullness and other things. Take a standard story of who did what on such and such a day, give it a few generations of being told among peoples of different cultural and social backgrounds and languages and you're bound to get even more corruptions of the original stories. This is just how oral tradition works, and in the Greco-Roman period in Judea - which was a melting-pot of different peoples - this would have been even more so.
While there may have been some textual invention going on, I wouldn't fault them too much - they were, after all, dealing with the oral tradition and what it bequeated to them. None of the Gospels bear the author's name (these were added later traditionally to give them a little more "authority" to gain their entrance into the coveted 4 Gospels that the canonizers were shooting for), so we cannot fall back on the old claim that the authors were eye-witnesses. R. Brown writes briefly that
None of the Gospels mentions an author's name, and it is quite possible that none was actually written by the one whose name was attached to it at the end of the 2nd century (John Mark, companion of Paul and then of Peter; Matthew, one of the Twelve; Luke, companion of Paul; John, one of the Twelve).
(An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, 1997, pp. 7-8)
Their actual writing down is considered to have been late, judging from their content and the utter lack of citations of them from the Pauline (and other) letters. Paul seems unaware of many events narrated in the Gospels, probably because he had no access to any - only oral stories.
The textual invention that was going on can be seen best in what certain authors left out of the sources they were utilizing. One can compare Matthew and Luke synonomously against Mark and see what each one chose to leave out, and what they chose to retain. This can reveal a lot behind the minds of those who compiled Matthew and Luke, and the other books.
This makes them incredibly difficult to use as reliable historical witnesses, but makes them inredibly interesting as studies in four different views of Jesus - each one unique in it's own way. Is it possible to make a "harmony" of all four Gospels to get a more "complete" picture of Jesus' actual life? I don't think so, personally. It is in that instance that one is discarding the individual voices of the authors and making one's own "super-Gospel".
Whoppers, I did not touch on Jesus' illiteracy, as well as that of at least some of his 12 , Which may explain why Jesus never wrote anything himself, or as far as we know, asked others to do so
I also think we have to look at how accurate the gospels are, and remember, there were many other gospels that were not included in the canonization of the Bible, who knows how many gospels about Jesus were written? Probably not too many, as the Jesus movement was minor until Paul, but we still know that there were other manuscripts not included in the canonization. Which is why when we say "Well Jesus said this and JEsus did that" We are not 100% sure.
I would not place Jesus as "god" of course, but just as another teacher from his era, his followers who may have been drawn to his charisma, some were of the undesirable element of Society, he was not well taken by the more elite class (Pharasees) and IF the gospels have any truth to them, then we do have a picture of a Essene or Nazarean in Occupied Judea. That's it.
I respect Jesus of Nazareth alot, but I am not a Christian. I simply believe CHristianity is a man-made religion. But in fairness to CHristians, your points are mostly minor nits and if you understood the Christian theology you'ld understand that their idea of God permits Jesus to also be a man of his times. Your ideas of perfection don't match theirs.
And Pilate was SO brutal that even the Romans thought he overdid it with his excesses - to the point that he was eventually recalled to some grim punishment, no doubt. Being sent to Judea was already a punishment for a wealthy and sophisticated Roman looking to advance, and it was considered the "boonies" to begin with. That's enough to make any procurator cranky. Pilate just happened to be more cranky than most heh heh!
It seemed that there were political differences. Tiberius' policy was to respect the beliefs of the jews, even to having Pilate's coinage without his head on it - which was almost disrespect to the emperor and state. Pilate (note the imperial standards episode) would certainly have been inclined to circulate roman money and knock a few jewish heads in if they got stroppy. At the same time, being a governor was an opportunity to make money out of the place so as to fund a political career. This was not corruption - this was accepted politics. The reason that Tiberius recalled Pilate was because of the Jews and Samaritans jointly complaining about him to Rome. I suspect that they could have saved their breath, but Tiberius had come out of retirement and sacked Sejanus so, now was the time to make their complaint, which was effective.
Quote:
Or perhaps the oral tradition of the stories being passed down undergoing corruption. Most of the stories from the Gospels would have circulated this way, and oral tradition is notorious for embellishment, forgetfullness and other things. Take a standard story of who did what on such and such a day, give it a few generations of being told among peoples of different cultural and social backgrounds and languages and you're bound to get even more corruptions of the original stories. This is just how oral tradition works, and in the Greco-Roman period in Judea - which was a melting-pot of different peoples - this would have been even more so.
While there may have been some textual invention going on, I wouldn't fault them too much - they were, after all, dealing with the oral tradition and what it bequeated to them. None of the Gospels bear the author's name (these were added later traditionally to give them a little more "authority" to gain their entrance into the coveted 4 Gospels that the canonizers were shooting for), so we cannot fall back on the old claim that the authors were eye-witnesses. R. Brown writes briefly that
None of the Gospels mentions an author's name, and it is quite possible that none was actually written by the one whose name was attached to it at the end of the 2nd century (John Mark, companion of Paul and then of Peter; Matthew, one of the Twelve; Luke, companion of Paul; John, one of the Twelve).
(An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, 1997, pp. 7-8)
Their actual writing down is considered to have been late, judging from their content and the utter lack of citations of them from the Pauline (and other) letters. Paul seems unaware of many events narrated in the Gospels, probably because he had no access to any - only oral stories.
The textual invention that was going on can be seen best in what certain authors left out of the sources they were utilizing. One can compare Matthew and Luke synonomously against Mark and see what each one chose to leave out, and what they chose to retain. This can reveal a lot behind the minds of those who compiled Matthew and Luke, and the other books.
This makes them incredibly difficult to use as reliable historical witnesses, but makes them inredibly interesting as studies in four different views of Jesus - each one unique in it's own way. Is it possible to make a "harmony" of all four Gospels to get a more "complete" picture of Jesus' actual life? I don't think so, personally. It is in that instance that one is discarding the individual voices of the authors and making one's own "super-Gospel".
In case you haven't come across what Thom R calls my 'pet theory ) let me explain how I think the gospels developed.
(1) there was a messianic Jew called Jesus. His attempt failed and Pilate executed him for sedition. Tacitus says that much.
(2) his followers reasoned that his messianic spirit had gone back to sit beside God and would come again at the last days as was expected daily in those days of pagan occupation.
(3) Paul as a loyal Roman originally opposed these followers but 'converted' with a realization that his religion could be made to include his roman fellow -citizens through faith in this messiah. That is the thesis he sets out in Romans. This is all around 36-37 AD
(4) Paul buys into the Jesus group (under the leadership of James) by combining missionary work to the Gentile greeks with collecting for the Judean famine of 45 AD. Paul's summons to Jerusalem to explain reports that he was teaching a form of their religion without circumcision or clean (kashrat or Kosher) food observances is around 51 AD. Of course at this time, the apostles were all together and had been swapping stories about old Jesus and what he had done or said. Thus the argument (which we sometimes hear) that some may not of heard of the raising of Lazarus or the transfiguration or the tomb guard or whether Jesus was stabbed or not is total nonsense.
(5) Paul carries on as before though snarling at those 'super apostles' or those who 'teach a different gospel from that I gave you - this is the origin of the anti -pharisee tone of the gospels) while there may have been some efforts to submit memories of Jesus and his life to paper about this time, the Gospels did not exist. Paul had been sent to Rome (around 60 AD) and his teachings appeared to be failing. nevertheless, somebody did write (probably in uneducated koine greek) an account of Jesus and the saying and deeds that showed that he was the messiah and which incorporated Paul's teachings on circumcision, the sabbath and 'clean food'. This (which I call proto - Matthew, though it more resembles Mark) was addressed to the greek - roman converts to Pauline Christianity and was the basis of the three synoptic gospels.
(6) after the Jewish war (66- 70 AD) the Jewish Nazorenes were probably done for and no Roman Christian wanted to hear their views on Jesus. The anti Pharisee line was now anti all Jews (unless converted). Their Jesus (though undeniably a Jew) was the Pauline Christian of the synoptics and was anti - pharisee just as they were. This is when the original gospel was adapted by Mark, Luke and Matthew (whatever their real names were) to their own tastes, with a miraculous birth added and a solid flesh resurrection added to the empty tomb ending and hint that the body had risen of the original (and still ends there in Mark) proto -matthew (which had developed out the idea of the messiah spirit having risen to heaven.
John also produced a very different gospel with sermons rather than parables, for example, but also sharing with Luke (who also wrote 'Acts' - a biography of Paul and legitimization of his teachings as the valid gospel of Jesus) not only a bitter hatred of jews but a lot of circulating stories (such as the miraculous catch of fishes and the eating of bit of cooked fish, used by Luke and John in totally different contexts -Luke 5.6 John 21.6) but actually based on the same story of the Jewish messiah who was executed by Pilate. That much they agree on. And his claim that it is eyewitness testimony (not his own clearly) is sorta true.
Thus corruption of the text is true - in the sense of heavy editing, amendment and addition, but not in the sense of a true account which somehow got muddled in translation.
I can give evidence for every bit of this. Whether that is considered good enough proof or even whether i am assessing the evidence correctly is open to discussion.
"The textual invention that was going on can be seen best in what certain authors left out of the sources they were utilizing. One can compare Matthew and Luke synonomously against Mark and see what each one chose to leave out, and what they chose to retain. This can reveal a lot behind the minds of those who compiled Matthew and Luke, and the other books."
Absolutely. this method of comparison can easily provide examples of discrepancies and contradictions which can be explained away, fiddled together to make up a composite story (as I say this will not wash, but what do believers care about that?) or simply ignored as 'eyewitness don't always agree' which again will not wash with really important events. This comparison will show clearly the common original text used by the synoptics and thus where they adapted it.
This is my touchstone example: Luke 24.6 as against Mark 16.7 and Matthew 28 7. where Luke changes 'going ahead to Galilee' into 'what he told you when in Galilee' because of course in Luke the disciples do not go to Galilee.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-01-2012 at 04:37 AM..
The fact that Jesus followers may have thought that Jesus' return would be imminent (AKA Any day now ) Would have given them no need to write or record anything, since in their perspective, all would have passed away anyway. I still think that Jesus, and some of the followers, including the fishermen, were probably illiterate. Fishermen would have had no need to learn to read or write and would have learned their trade from a young age, spending days on boats and in markets selling their catch. Jesus as a carpenter (AKA A day laborer ) Would likewise been from a tradition that would have taught him basics of measurement and simple geometery, but beyond that, probably no great reading ability. (which is odd, because one would think "god" could read and speak all languages too....HOWEVER I do not believe Jesus was "God" or "a god")
I do not think Jesus' followers were trying to start a religion, as you mentioned, they were waiting for his quick and imminent return.
I do not believe that Jesus was trying to start a religion either, and there is no credibility to the statement of "Building a church" aid to Peter, there is adequet scholarly evidence and argument againnst this. This was a later embellishment added to the gospel to give validity to the Jesus movement AS A RELIGION.......
The fact that Jesus followers may have thought that Jesus' return would be imminent (AKA Any day now ) Would have given them no need to write or record anything, since in their perspective, all would have passed away anyway. I still think that Jesus, and some of the followers, including the fishermen, were probably illiterate. Fishermen would have had no need to learn to read or write and would have learned their trade from a young age, spending days on boats and in markets selling their catch. Jesus as a carpenter (AKA A day laborer ) Would likewise been from a tradition that would have taught him basics of measurement and simple geometery, but beyond that, probably no great reading ability. (which is odd, because one would think "god" could read and speak all languages too....HOWEVER I do not believe Jesus was "God" or "a god")
I do not think Jesus' followers were trying to start a religion, as you mentioned, they were waiting for his quick and imminent return.
I do not believe that Jesus was trying to start a religion either, and there is no credibility to the statement of "Building a church" aid to Peter, there is adequet scholarly evidence and argument againnst this. This was a later embellishment added to the gospel to give validity to the Jesus movement AS A RELIGION.......
Yes indeed. The strong tradition of being galilean fisherman does suggest a lack of regular attendance in school. But in fact noted Jewish teachers could also have very mundane jobs - note Hillel and shammai. And literacy might have been more widespread than was common. Mind, the scriptures were in hebrew, so writing would require training in greek, aramic and latin. I would expect a reasonably educated Pharisee of Jesus' time to be bilingual at least and able to get by in greek, too, plus a smattering of latin.
Of course, God's assistance would dish out whatever skills were needed. Without that I doubt that adolescent Jesus would have been holding Torah classes with a lot of Rabbis. But I really doubt that little tale of Luke's.
Whoppers, I did not touch on Jesus' illiteracy, as well as that of at least some of his 12 , Which may explain why Jesus never wrote anything himself, or as far as we know, asked others to do so.
Yes, it's almost certain that the majority of his disciples did not read or write - literacy rates were extremely low in that area of the world, and simple farmers and fishermen would not have had the luxury or time to learn how to read or write. Back in those days, when someone "read" a document, they read it aloud for themself, and also read it to those who could not do so themselves. Silent reading, as most of us do today, was not the norm yet. This is one reason why we find certain instructions in some of Paul's letters to "read" the letter to the congregation, rather than passing out copies (which were not easy to do in the days before printing presses, anyways).
That the advantages of Hellenization and Romanization, and the education (and language!) that came with it, did not reach Galilee at this time (as opposed to Judea, where it had reached via Herod the Great) is illustrated nicely in Mark A. Chancey's important work Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 134, Cambridge, 2005). In it he demonstrates just how "backwater" Galilee would have been, and shows that Greco-Roman culture did not really take over in Galiee until after the Jewish Revolt in the first century AD (66-70). He also touches on the important issue of literacy that you raised. Some have tried to claim that Jesus spoke Greek, but this is highly unlikely. The dominant language in Judea would not even have been Hebrew - but Aramaic, and most scholars are of the view that Jesus spoke Aramaic primarily, perhaps with some Hebrew. Hebrew was not as widespread a language as one might think. Joseph A. Fitzmeyer has an informative essay on this called "The Languages of Palestine in the First Century AD", in The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 60, Sheffield, Eng., 1991). Needless to say, there has always been some debate on these issues - with much of it coming from more conservative circles attempting to demonstrate that Jesus spoke Greek, in an attempt to bolster up the "eye-witnessesness" (is that a word?) of the Gospel Accounts. An interesting work that attempts to find the Aramaic "original" behind Matthew (if there is such a written thing), as well as touching on the oral tradition, is W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann's translation and commentary on the Gospel in the Anchor Bible Series (Doubleday, 1971). While there is much to disagree with, it's very interesting and can probably be had for a few dollars on Amazon, used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LargeKingCat
I also think we have to look at how accurate the gospels are, and remember, there were many other gospels that were not included in the canonization of the Bible, who knows how many gospels about Jesus were written? Probably not too many, as the Jesus movement was minor until Paul, but we still know that there were other manuscripts not included in the canonization. Which is why when we say "Well Jesus said this and JEsus did that" We are not 100% sure.
Most definitely! Just as we were talking above about the various choices the Gospel writers made in choosing what to include in their accounts, the very selection of the four canonincal Gospels follows the same process of selecting. Paula Fredrikson, in an excellent work, writes that
The now-lost primitive oral traditions....were all variously affected by processes of selection, invention, and reinterpretation. Working at the level of written tradtion, especially with the synoptic gospels, we can see these processes immediately expressed in the myriad editorial decisions of the individual evangelists. And at the macro-level of the canon, these processes have determined the shape of the New Testament collection itself. For the canon (the Greek word for "measure" or "standard") represents an attempt on the part of one branch of the second-through fourth-century church to produce order, to authorize only some of the growing quantity of Christian writings for its members. The canon thus reflects the political and theological controversies of this later period more than it reflects either the historical situation of those controversies of the period that the canonical texts purportedly describe. The four gospels collectively stand as the survivors of a process whose principles of selction had more to do with competition between different Christian groups than with a disinterested concern for history. And once the choice was made, it was perceived and defended in terms persuasive and meaningful to its ancient audience.
(From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus, Yale, 1988, p. 6)
She then quotes the famous passage from Irenaeus which I alluded to in an earlier post in which he claims that the choice of four gospels, and only four, was for certain unchangable reasons (such as the 4 zones of the world in which people live, the 4 winds, the 4 pillars of the church, etc....
The above work by Fredriksen is excellent, and the first chapter (The Nature of the Documents) is a great summary of the Gospels, and is short enough for a quick read - but packed full of excellent, indispensible information. I highly reccomend this work overall, but especially the first chapter for a quick over-view. From the title of the book it can be seen what the overall premise is: how did the idea of Jesus the man become the world-changing belief of Christ the Messiah? This is one book that anyone interested in this subject should pick up, immediately heh heh! Very readable, and not overly scholary - it's the perfect blend for most interested in the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LargeKingCat
I would not place Jesus as "god" of course, but just as another teacher from his era, his followers who may have been drawn to his charisma, some were of the undesirable element of Society, he was not well taken by the more elite class (Pharasees) and IF the gospels have any truth to them, then we do have a picture of a Essene or Nazarean in Occupied Judea. That's it.
Then you would very much enjoy Fredriken's work above, I think.
Interestingly, Jesus shared many concepts with the Pharisees - and there have been several interesting studies on this that are very illuminating.
I need to run, but I'd like to comment more on what has been written - especially on Arequipa's excellent post of his theory. Very nice! In the meantime, I'll leave you with Fredriksen's end to that 1st chapter and her justification for the book, with a nice cliff-notes version of what she had written:
From oral to written; from Aramaic to Greek; from the End of time to the middle of time; from Jewish to Gentile; from the Galilee and Judea to the Empire.
How can we begin to recover this other past, the past which exists concealed in our documents? Perhaps by recovering therein the varieties of the images of Jesus.
(ibid p. 8)
The Seed "the Size of a Mustard seed"...meaning some seed that is the same size....THE SEED, THE PLANT, THE ORGINAL PLANT GOD PUT IN THE CENTER OF HIS GARDEN....A PLANT OF PEACE...Not for Our consumption (Told not to touch it, but leave it be where it was alive and well cared for)...Yes?...TO RESTORE THIS ONTO GOD...as it was taken in disobediance...it should be restored as Justice serves correction of it..it is demanded by Justice, to restore that which is taken from someone...Stolen...when found...put back....and in a sinless way undoes what the robbers did do...Created Death....and so " Give onto God what Belongs to God"...something not given, but was stolen or taken without permission...that caused a falling away of some of the others.
Hence we can assume..."A Seed the size of a Mustard seed" = can only be a comparison....and , as Adam and Eve (humans) are the cause of this estate called Death...to correct their errors ...they were sent into Death..."Because of You it is like this" God said...and if we correct that error sinlessly with God and the EDEN ESTATE OR KINGDOM...(Acts 3:21, 10:15)..in referencing Genesis and what was made By God, what was given, and what was judged By God as being Good...always..Utilizing Acts 10:15 on the Genesis to formulate Acts 3:21 in putting everything back the way it is suppose to be...LIKE EDEN....Then we can make steps to making Edens...as a Multiple....if we comply to the rule of thumb God employed first and formost..."tend and Keep the Garden with all the givens that are Good....and we take Genesis 9:3 as underlined word to follow in....some form of stability being promoted as a way to that, or in making with...all the green plants that yeild seeds, fruits, nuts, and veg..and still others Grains...and still others spice , herb, and others...that are Green, and of other colours...once we understand the matrix of that...we become Helpers of the whole...from water filtration, sun energy management, air filtration systems of a living nature, which also feed the others (Our neighbours) all living things which God is maker of, on this world, and probably many others....Jesus says My Father has many mansions....and this is true here and upthere....yes?
So did Jesus make a hospital?...no.
Did Jesus charge People to be healed?..No.
Did Jesus or God give us a polluted estate in which to live?...no.
Washing the feet...and hands...keeps down the germs....something Jesus did practice...as in those times poo poo was everywhere...and people walked in it.....and did not think to wash before coming back into the camp.
WHere Jesus comes to reason is Germs are part of living things...God commands...and if God says or instructs something living to exite or enter..the body...it is because of X,Y<Z>...now Jesus said it is to glorify God...and so Jesus asks God to cure them...to GLORIFY HIMSELF as PROOF he is God...and that those who do not know God...will see..and then understand...and eventually DO....because it is proven...it is sound...it makes a climatized estate arise...EDENS ..it feeds the multitudes of living things....and God said to us...tend and keep it all....have dominon over it...right the error that was done...and do it sinlessly...to reverse the original sin....and live!
If Jesus did not understand Germs...then how does Jesus Cure the sick and blind and raise the dead still, as some preachers will say they have witnessed, by using his name and believing?...How does Jesus raise the dead with only a word from his mouth ?....You will probably say he did not....But I say he still does!..but you cannot believe, because of your disbelief.....and I cannot change your mind on that ...But the seed is still here...and they prohibite it in some states and nations and kingdoms....wonder why?...and they are now slaughtering those who grow it...again wonder why?...and many support this slaughtering, imprisonment, oppression, sanctions, and such...as tax payers...this law they made...which contradicts God...and many Commandments now broken...and the laws of the land not adhered to ...and covenants being broken aswell....surely you see?....or hear?...or know of?.....as it was well foretold it would be like this...because of something Jesus Kicked at....which God never made, never said was Good, and Jesus proclaims it to be the root of sin and evils done to the creation itself.....and we now live in a polluted state of being, and born into that...while it continues on to a inevitable end?....how much pollution does it take to stop doing it, as it is bad for our health....oh no...do not stop...the hospitals and such need that going on so they can make profits and gains off the sick and now mutated......Yah ...more need for the $$$$....more enslavement to polluting the planet...more death, more suffering, more woes and wrath....mostly because we do not listen or understand..or even think...eh??...and where is EDEN? or EDENS? TODAY?...hmmm?...Those who do the will of my Father, shall enter Paradise"...is a self fulfilling Paradox....for if you do not make, how can one enter it?.....and that is a testement of Jesus and God...not much of the givens left to pick from....and they seem to hate a certain plant and its cousins....wonder why?....well to keep it bent out of form no doubt....again the seed the size of a mustard seed....is something to ponder, and sow..as plants belong in the EDEN estate....that is where it belongs under God...and so...we can resolve, we can understand, and we can utilize all the Givens, and restore the one taken.....in a sinless form.....and if they try to stop us from doing that service...then we know something is wrong with the system we are born into....and I see it as Jesus saw it...Money is a engraven IDOL God did not give, nor did God make, Nor does God want, and he clearly states for us to not want it or use it for that matter....and the world is based on it...But the Earth is not....the more they try to put this over everything falsely subjecting all living things to it....for it...as it is..."Your making a den of robbers sinners and theives, evildoers and the bent mutated not doing as God asked we do.......then more will be taken away!...I see that...Don't you?
So sowing is in part part right...not judging or falsely subjecting anything living to a dead thing....Give like God...be like God..share like God....and be perfect like God...and make what God made.....everything else is in error to that....how long does it take to do?
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.
) but is a rather poor argument made by a Greek Christian apologist to other gentiles who would be pretty uncritical, uniformed and in no position to do other than murmur 'Cor, yeah. That's a good argument. King David ate the temple bread, so the Sabbath doesn't matter.' 
) let me explain how I think the gospels developed.
