Were Jesus and the Baptist 'left wing' or 'right wing' ?

[rogue06]

Let me guess, you're of the fringe opinion that Paul's letters to Timothy are forgeries based on dubious "evidence" such as slight differences in grammar and a supposedly more advanced theology.

That sounds like just the sort of thing someone as ignorant as you would fall for.

She has a list of the epistles that she think aren't from Paul.

Honestly, if it were just the Pastorals, that would be one thing, but her list has a few of his major writings in it.

[Diogenes]

she has a list of the epistles that she think aren't from paul.

Honestly, if it were just the pastorals, that would be one thing, but her a list she's "borrowed" from someone else has a few of his major writings in it.

fify

[rogue06]

fify

I can't argue given that... ...she has never once bothered to read the Bible herself in spite of spending so much time telling everyone what it says and means

[eider]

You're going to need to show your work. What passage of scripture are you quoting?

...so many to offer you, but here is one of them, a commandment:-
Leviticus {15:11} For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

It's a commandment, a law, of which there are so many, and including how to respond to debtors who find that they cannot pay back.

"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

No....... Jesus's message was quite clear from his actions and words at the temple. As you know he was a scrapper, and trashed the money bazaar and then picketed the Temple Courts.....and hev went back the next day to do it all again! You once mentioned that Jesus would have had an AR-15 if he could........... you got that right!

[eider]

I would highly doubt much of the Mosaic Law is on the books.


You are the one extolling the virtues of the Mosaic Laws, not me. For example:
.

Yes, I am most impressed by many of those laws, and if copying is a compliment, then so is my country.
Off the top of my head. .......................................

Theft Act 1968
Theft. Burglary. Robbery. Deception. Handling stolen goods. Receiving stolen goods, Aiding and abetting.

Offences agasnst the person Act 1861.
Rape. Sexual assault.

Common Law: Murder

Civil Laws:-
Many, but here is one: All work on Flat roofs to be protected by railing', etc.

Social Services Acts:- Nobody is to be caused to starve or freeze.



You need to read the laws of Moses. If I would show each UK law beside a Mosaic law then it would takev many hours to do, but this post might action such a work......most interesting.

[eider]

The text reads, "When you see a cross, then think of the horrible murder by the Jews on Golgotha."

Christianity is steeped in hatred of the Jews...........

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

She has a list of the epistles that she think aren't from Paul.

Honestly, if it were just the Pastorals, that would be one thing, but her list has a few of his major writings in it.

Would you like to give us all that list that you allege I have?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Then perhaps you can explain why that concept can be found expressed throughout the New Testament, including in books never associated much less written by Paul?

Why is Jesus Himself clearly expressing it in the Gospels?

I suppose you do realise that all those works that we now have in the NT were selected in the fourth century from a huge number of writings that had been cited or used as scripture by various groups during the previous 250 years or so? And that selection process was made by officials acting on behalf of the highest authorities within the Roman government?

Furthermore some texts that had been initially included were later removed, thereby indicating some change of ecclesiastical opinion had occurred concerning the canonical status of those texts.

Apart from those epistles considered authentic to Paul, all the other texts that we now have post-date his writings and virtually all are dated to after 70 CE. Many are influenced by the ideas he expressed, or by his ideas as the respective authors had received them.

Some debate went on over whether to include the Revelation of John, and Eusebius tells us that it was accepted by some and not by others which indicates the text was disputed.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I can't argue given that... ...she has never once bothered to read the Bible herself in spite of spending so much time telling everyone what it says and means

Is this you doing your party tricks?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

As I have previously said, thank you for conceding that you have not actually presented any argument to support your specious claims about the reliability of the gospels.

I have pointed out that there are inherent contradictions within the four gospels.

We have two different birth narratives whose chronology is out by at least ten years.
We have four different narratives regarding of the interrogation by the Jewish authorities and who was actually present.
We have distinct variations on the conversation between Jesus and Pilate
We have four different narratives of who went the tomb, what happened there, who else was there, and precisely where they were situated according to each narrative.

The argument put forward by some here that this is because eye witnesses each have their own memory of events is somewhat crass.

The writers of these texts were not eye witnesses. Mark [the generally accepted earliest account] may have utilised some form of oral tradition but oral tradition is not reliable. Another example of the unreliability of oral accounts is found in the writings of Papias concerning the final days of Judas [a grotesque and nauseating description]. However, Papias appears to have obtained his information at least at fourth hand [if not further] and so we have a third alleged account of what happened to Judas.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Let me guess, you're of the fringe opinion that Paul's letters to Timothy are forgeries based on dubious "evidence" such as slight differences in grammar and a supposedly more advanced theology.

That sounds like just the sort of thing someone as ignorant as you would fall for.

It is not fringe in academia. Although I suspect it is fringe among biblical fundamentalists.

[rogue06]

Would you like to give us all that list that you allege I have?

Too much trouble to go through your posts where you proclaim from your comfy chair from upon high which of his epistles that you in your infinite, gracious wisdom have deigned to be "authentic" and which you have rejected as spurious.

[rogue06]

Is this you doing your party tricks?

Sorry fraud, but Sparko pinned you down awhile back and you admitted that in spite of all the years you have railed against the Bible, you never bothered to actually read it.

[rogue06]

I have pointed out that there are inherent contradictions within the four gospels.

We have two different birth narratives whose chronology is out by at least ten years.
We have four different narratives regarding of the interrogation by the Jewish authorities and who was actually present.
We have distinct variations on the conversation between Jesus and Pilate
We have four different narratives of who went the tomb, what happened there, who else was there, and precisely where they were situated according to each narrative.

The argument put forward by some here that this is because eye witnesses each have their own memory of events is somewhat crass.

The writers of these texts were not eye witnesses. Mark [the generally accepted earliest account] may have utilised some form of oral tradition but oral tradition is not reliable. Another example of the unreliability of oral accounts is found in the writings of Papias concerning the final days of Judas [a grotesque and nauseating description]. However, Papias appears to have obtained his information at least at fourth hand [if not further] and so we have a third alleged account of what happened to Judas.

Most of the alleged "contradictions" of who was at the tomb were shown to be anything but and yet you persist in claiming otherwise because you need it to be.

And Luke is an "eyewitness" -- but not to Jesus' ministry, but rather to some of the events he writes about in Acts.

Then of course John was an apostle

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Sorry fraud, but Sparko pinned you down awhile back and you admitted that in spite of all the years you have railed against the Bible, you never bothered to actually read it.

Once again your poor memory is revealing itself.

I replied that I had not read all the texts straight through in one sitting

In other words I have never chosen to sit down with a version of the Bible and read that version straight-through from cover to cover.