Yeah, whatever. Mark is basically saying salvation is through Jesus because of who and what he was. Matthew is saying salvation is through Jesus because he was the fulfillment of the Law and was foretold by the Prophets. Luke is saying salvation is through Jesus because he embodies God’s compassion for all. John is saying salvation is through Jesus because of his mystical unity with the Father. Paul is saying salvation is through Jesus because of a bunch of overly complicated theological stuff. And someone with no faith at all, but with familiarity with the Scriptures, could have said the same thing.
Leaving Paul aside (he’s not a gospel writer), what Mark, Luke and John say is meaningless verbiage, unless you have faith that it actually means something. They are, at best, being tautological. Jesus is salvation because he is. And Matthew is demonstrably wrong, since Jesus did not fulfill the Law as foretold by the Prophets. It really takes faith to believe something that is demonstrably wrong.
Today? Shouldn’t it have been the day after tomorrow?
Welcome to Cafeteria Christianity. --or-- welcome to trying to muddle through, theologically. Y’all are stuck worshipping a solid rat bastard. Xtians can pretend he has a nice side.
Amen, given how shitty Friday was. I hate Fridays.
Or my wife, who has been jerked around medically for so long she wants to go to hospice and stop dialysis. She correctly asked if I would put a dog through this. No, I merely like dogs.
God damn it all, I hate when non-believers pull that shit and act so superior. Maybe he wasn’t God, but Jesus has as much historiocity as most anybody 2000 years ago. IE: not much, but enough for us to assume he was probably real.
Was it the Jehova’s that came up with the idea that the comma is wrong in that quote?
“I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.”
John, you’ve lost me here. The authors’ meaning doesn’t change based on whether they’re right or wrong, whether they’ve put their faith in something real or just another illusion dressed up as a religion. They mean what they mean.
Remember, we’re discussing Czarcasm’s assertion in post #157 that
I would dispute the notion that concurrences far outweigh disagreements when it comes to the gospels…and you’ve neglected to mention that some of these “concurrences” are due to either copying or use of the same sources.
How do we know God even felt the pain of crucifixion? He could have taken it away by his powers, and faked it, being God and all.
Or, Jesus wasn’t god, or in any way related.
Or, god wasn’t the least bit interested in that event, anymore than any other.
Or, no god; It’s just a story.
Point being, people believe what they want to believe. Evidence is not required in matters of faith.
As long as they keep insisting that evidence is there(which they certainly do), such evidence that they bring forth is open to examination…as is any counter-evidence.
It’s better if Christ didn’t feel pain, which is very possible and somewhat supportable. Gifts of the Holy Spirit such as long suffering ( not actually suffering in situations that would cause it), and also perhaps Stephan taking by the Lord and not having to suffer the stoning ordered by Saul (aka Paul the Apostle) both speaks to the great mercy of God, and the protection God offers everyone who is willing to walk that path, even spared from the pain of death. Jesus would be required by scripture to walk that path by faith and not knowing everything (several times in the bible Jesus does not know things).
As for the pain of God the Father for all the useless things humans do read Ecclesiastes.
Also another interpretation of Jesus get out of suffering free card in the Gospel of Peter (non-canon).
That’s what I love most about religious evidence: Everything is evidence for. Nothing is evidence against.
Feeling pain=evidence for.
Not feeling pain=evidence for.
If Jesus is God, how can he not know things. Isn’t God all knowing, all powerful, yada, yada, yada.
Well, yeah; the text says he drank something from that sponge, and then slumped over as if he’d been dosed with some really powerful drugs.
God is affected by drugs? How is that possible?
Jesus is the son of the Father, as such trust is part of the equation of God.
Don’t know of the ‘slumped over’ account, but IIRC he refused it and did not drink it.
Well, my copy is right here, and right at John 19 there’s a bit where he saith “I thirst,” and folks put the sponge soaked in stuff up to his mouth. “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.” So, do you RC about him refusing it and not drinking it?
We were always taught that the vinigar was just another taunt from the Romans but
it probably wasn’t plain vinigar. it was more likely posca, water mixed with slightly off wine. The stuff the soldiers drank themselves.
The soldier was being kind.
Dear old Harold Camping was so desperate to explain that one, he actually claimed that “the son” in Matthew 24:36 referred to Satan, not Jesus.
(I miss the poor bastard. He was actually one of the good guys among Biblical literalists.)