Why Don't These Cowards....

[seer]

That's what the Salvation Army used to do. You could have some subsistence and help but you needed to attend a good preaching.
So you would bring them in to your home and offer hospitality....that is good.
Now, since they are all dressed, and clean, and give homage to Jesus, how are you going to start talking to them about repentance for their sins? And what sins?
Let us assume that all of those men are gay, so how would you tell them that homosexuality is against the laws of your God? Where would you get that from?

I was with the Salvation Army for a number of years. And homosexuals behavior is sin according to Scripture, and yes I have spoken to both gay men and women. And I know a number who have repented from that behavior.

[rogue06]

Ha ha! So your version is that the Baptist did not remember that his cousin was God?

How much do you remember from your infancy, much less from before you were born?

Do you think that the Baptist soon forgot that Baptism, where God called down from on high, the lightning and thunder splitting open the sky, the doves flying?

While some postulate that being thrown in prison led to John becoming depressed and full of doubts, it could well be that he was one of the many Jews who was expecting a more militant Messiah. Many were proclaiming that the coming kingdom would come about by means of a military overthrow. But Jesus was not doing anything that could be construed as preparing for a war.

Jesus had come as a Savior, not a Warrior-King.

Scripture Verse: John 3:17

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

© Copyright Original Source

Now, what many people don't realize is there are Jewish traditions which spoke of there being more than one redeemer, each one called Messiah, who are involved in ushering in the Messianic era.

The most common tradition referred to two, Mashiach ben David (the savior figure) and Mashiach ben Yossef (the warrior) although one tradition, inspired by Zechariah 1:18-21, indicates there would be four!

So basically, given that John had predicted that the Messiah would be a more vengeful figure that Jesus was...

Scripture Verse: Matthew 3:7

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

© Copyright Original Source

...he could be asking if he could expect another, more war-like Messiah to arise.

You're funny.

I know.

But looks aren't every thing.

[rogue06]

Yep, they just happen to be a certain kind of christian sinners that these Christian sinners here can't accept.

All sinners who repent are accepted.

But given their dress it looks like they haven't repented but still wholly embrace that lifestyle.

It would be no different if someone came to church still drunk with a hooker on each arm.

[tabibito]

While some postulate that being thrown in prison led to John becoming depressed and full of doubts, it could well be that he was one of the many Jews who was expecting a more militant Messiah. Many were proclaiming that the coming kingdom would come about by means of a military overthrow. But Jesus was not doing anything that could be construed as preparing for a war.

Jesus had come as a Savior, not a Warrior-King.

Scripture Verse: John 3:17

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

© Copyright Original Source

Now, what many people don't realize is there are Jewish traditions which spoke of there being more than one redeemer, each one called Messiah, who are involved in ushering in the Messianic era.

The most common tradition referred to two, Mashiach ben David (the savior figure) and Mashiach ben Yossef (the warrior) although one tradition, inspired by Zechariah 1:18-21, indicates there would be four!

So basically, given that John had predicted that the Messiah would be a more vengeful figure that Jesus was...

Scripture Verse: Matthew 3:7

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

© Copyright Original Source

...he could be asking if he could expect another, more war-like Messiah to arise.

Also - if there was a significant delay before Jesus became a public actor, John might have begun to entertain doubts.

[JimL]

All sinners who repent are accepted.

But given their dress it looks like they haven't repented but still wholly embrace that lifestyle.

It would be no different if someone came to church still drunk with a hooker on each arm.

Looks like they haven't repented from what, their fashion tastes?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

One would think that since I included the quote in its context that it would be obvious that I am quite aware of exactly where the quote could be found.

Maybe you should demonstrate where I misquoted and distorted what he said rather than just nakedly assert it.

This appears to be little more than a smokescreen designed to cover your ineptitude, like where you claimed that it is commonly agreed that Matthew and Luke just used Mark and added their own comments and spin. That is nowhere close to the consensus and would in fact be an outlier hypothesis supported by, well, you.

I have mentioned Sherwin-White on a few occasions, but I sincerely doubt you had ever heard of him prior to that. As for his quote, you initially misquotes removing significant sections.

You then quoted it in its entirety but gave not reference to which text you were citing.

However, the significant section from which that quote was taken follows Emphasis mine:

Another example. The internal synoptic divergences, such as arise in the narratives of the trial of Christ, are very similar to those that Roman historians meet in the study of the tribunate of Gaius Gracchus. We have two or even three contradictory versions, for instance, of the content of the most important of the legislative proposals—a central point in the story—and there are three divergent versions of the way in which the riot began in which Gaius lost his life. The four accounts of the trial of Christ are not more troublesome. The two cases are rather similar in terms of analysis. The three versions of the death of Gaius aim at attributing the blame for the great riot to different persons or groups. So, too, the mildly divergent versions of the scene before Pilate and the Sanhedrin may aim, as has often been suggested, at transferring the blame for the condemnation of Christ, in varying degrees, from the Romans to the Jews.

The objection will be raised to this line of argument that the Roman historical writers and the Gospels belong to different kinds of literature. Whatever the defects of our sources, their authors were trying to write history, but the authors of the Gospels had a different aim. Yet however one accepts form-criticism, its principles do not inevitably contradict the notion of the basic historicity of the particular stories of which the Gospel narratives are composed, even if these were not shored up and confirmed by the external guarantee of their fabric and setting. That the degree of confirmation in Graeco-Roman terms is less for the Gospels than for Acts is due, as these lectures have tried to show, to the differences in their regional setting. As soon as Christ enters the Roman orbit at Jerusalem, the confirmation begins. For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. What to an ancient historian is most surprising in the basic assumptions of form-criticism of the extremer sort, is the presumed tempo of the development of the didactic myths—if one may use that term to sum up the matter. We are not unacquainted with this type of writing in ancient historiography, as will shortly appear. The agnostic type of form-criticism would be much more credible if the compilation of the Gospels were much later in time, much more remote from the events themselves, than can be the case. Certainly a deal of distortion can affect a story that is given literary form a generation or two after the event, whether for national glorification or political spite, or for the didactic or symbolic exposition of ideas.

Nor should Sherwin-White be automatically considered the de facto voice on these issues.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And?

See above.

[Mountain Man]

See above.

The source you quote generally affirms the historicity of the gospels despite your attempt to draw attention only to those sentences and phrases that you think support your ignorance.

[rogue06]

Looks like they haven't repented from what, their fashion tastes?

Gay BDS&M lifestyle

[rogue06]

I have mentioned Sherwin-White on a few occasions, but I sincerely doubt you had ever heard of him prior to that. As for his quote, you initially misquotes removing significant sections.

He has been among those I've listed citations from for awhile, for instance:

[...]

Adrian Nicolas (A.N.) Sherwin-White, FBA ancient historian and fellow of St John's College, University of Oxford and President of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies:

"For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."

You then quoted it in its entirety but gave not reference to which text you were citing.

smiley yawn.gif smiley yawn.gif

This is hardly a scholarly exchange! One might opine the cuckoos are calling late this year!

However, the significant section from which that quote was taken follows Emphasis mine:

Another example. The internal synoptic divergences, such as arise in the narratives of the trial of Christ, are very similar to those that Roman historians meet in the study of the tribunate of Gaius Gracchus. We have two or even three contradictory versions, for instance, of the content of the most important of the legislative proposals—a central point in the story—and there are three divergent versions of the way in which the riot began in which Gaius lost his life. The four accounts of the trial of Christ are not more troublesome. The two cases are rather similar in terms of analysis. The three versions of the death of Gaius aim at attributing the blame for the great riot to different persons or groups. So, too, the mildly divergent versions of the scene before Pilate and the Sanhedrin may aim, as has often been suggested, at transferring the blame for the condemnation of Christ, in varying degrees, from the Romans to the Jews.

The objection will be raised to this line of argument that the Roman historical writers and the Gospels belong to different kinds of literature. Whatever the defects of our sources, their authors were trying to write history, but the authors of the Gospels had a different aim. Yet however one accepts form-criticism, its principles do not inevitably contradict the notion of the basic historicity of the particular stories of which the Gospel narratives are composed, even if these were not shored up and confirmed by the external guarantee of their fabric and setting. That the degree of confirmation in Graeco-Roman terms is less for the Gospels than for Acts is due, as these lectures have tried to show, to the differences in their regional setting. As soon as Christ enters the Roman orbit at Jerusalem, the confirmation begins. For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. What to an ancient historian is most surprising in the basic assumptions of form-criticism of the extremer sort, is the presumed tempo of the development of the didactic myths—if one may use that term to sum up the matter. We are not unacquainted with this type of writing in ancient historiography, as will shortly appear. The agnostic type of form-criticism would be much more credible if the compilation of the Gospels were much later in time, much more remote from the events themselves, than can be the case. Certainly a deal of distortion can affect a story that is given literary form a generation or two after the event, whether for national glorification or political spite, or for the didactic or symbolic exposition of ideas.

Nor should Sherwin-White be automatically considered the de facto voice on these issues.

It's many of the things that you don't bolden that is telling.

"History for history's sake" is a relatively new phenomena () and until relatively recent historical accounts were always agenda driven -- I.O.W., propaganda of a sort. So it is no surprise that he regards Acts and the Gospels to be "a propaganda narrative" since it is darn near impossible to find any history or historical biography that wasn't.

Still, what does he write right before that?

For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming.

And immediately follows with a disclaimer on his disclaimer

But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

He wouldn't say that if it were just spin and later interpolations.

And in total, it would appear that he largely disagrees with the criticisms of what you've never even read and yet keep bringing forth. That there hadn't been enough time passed before the Gospels were written for anything but the most minor of myth-making to arise. That the books are historical.

[JimL]

...depict Mohamed like this? Complete Cowards and scum bags..

I wonder if you would be as outraged if the piece was a depiction of you Christian sinners here on tweb worshipping at jesus feet? Or is it just the particular kind of sin itself which is depicted in the work that upsets you?

[seer]

I wonder if you would be as outraged if the piece was a depiction of you Christian sinners here on tweb worshipping at jesus feet? Or is it just the particular kind of sin itself which is depicted in the work that upsets you?

Do you really think they were repenting of their sadomasochistic, homosexual sin?

[Diogenes]

And the same pericope has him saying to the crowd and the scribes and Pharisees "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." [NRSVUE]

Seeing as no one is advocating the civil government executing penalties for religious crimes as if the Mosaic system was still valid, that part is somewhat not applicable. No where in the Bible does it proscribe calling sin "sin".


Edit: The NRSVUE is a joke.

[Terraceth]

Edit: The NRSVUE is a joke.

I'm not very familiar with the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition. Aside from its goofy-looking title (it's the updated version of the new version of the revised version of the standard version?), what's wrong with it exactly?

[Diogenes]

I'm not very familiar with the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition. Aside from its goofy-looking title (it's the updated version of the new version of the revised version of the standard version?), what's wrong with it exactly?

From the criticism I've seen, it's attempted soften things like "female slave" to "servant girl", and translations disputes regarding arsenokoitai and malakoi. It was basically revised for the sake of "modern sensibilities".