a book was published
it has contents
we are born into a culture in which that book- the bible is either "accepted" as a whole- holy and truth
or denied
what if some of it is good and the council who decided what would be included - included bad with the good
??
that of course is heresy
and the quote will be "all scripture" is good- ignoring that paul wrote this and hence his intention was to books BEFORE him such as "the prophets and psalms"- not to his own letters and certainly not to what later people would include in the same book
!!
we are taught that paul wrote his letters around 50 ad and the gospels were written afterward perhaps 80-90 ad so the intention of paul was not about the gospels
now some stories in the four gospels appear in more than one gospel and we can learn
whether gospels are holy or merely a study-text-book like a school text book
from the words in the story and from comparing the versions of the story and from the surrounding context of each story
but what if a story only appears in one gospel
??
i saw a book taught in a "bible college" with a stupid idea- the book split the versions and claims what happened in one gospel "did not happen" nor occur in the other gospel
if matthew said jesus went to samaria and mark "left that out" the absence "proved" that mark denied
now this is cerrtainly not a contradiction there is a difference between opposites and absence it just means that one gospel is not supported by the other not the one gospel denied the other it does not jesus DID NOT go to samaria- that is not based on what mark said. the absence is simply that. mark could agree that he did not include every story and every detail
he never wrote "jesus did not go to samaria
so i recommend not going to bible colleges because there the students read this approach and other bad ideas
in contrast to this we can compare what they DO say=the opposite of absence
if luke said that on the day "they must kill the passover" jesus ate the passover and then in the morning brought to pilate- that is what is revealed and we can compare it to john that the morning was the day that they will eat the passover a clear contradiction
one gospel, at least one is saying the opposite of the other, in contrast to that sample above where absence occurred- not opposites
so which did not have the holy spirit to help him
??
was it luke who lacked the holy spirit and did not know the true day
or was it john
or maybe both lacked the help of the holy spirit and gospels are merely text books
hmm
it has contents
we are born into a culture in which that book- the bible is either "accepted" as a whole- holy and truth
or denied
what if some of it is good and the council who decided what would be included - included bad with the good
??
that of course is heresy
and the quote will be "all scripture" is good- ignoring that paul wrote this and hence his intention was to books BEFORE him such as "the prophets and psalms"- not to his own letters and certainly not to what later people would include in the same book
!!
we are taught that paul wrote his letters around 50 ad and the gospels were written afterward perhaps 80-90 ad so the intention of paul was not about the gospels
now some stories in the four gospels appear in more than one gospel and we can learn
whether gospels are holy or merely a study-text-book like a school text book
from the words in the story and from comparing the versions of the story and from the surrounding context of each story
but what if a story only appears in one gospel
??
i saw a book taught in a "bible college" with a stupid idea- the book split the versions and claims what happened in one gospel "did not happen" nor occur in the other gospel
if matthew said jesus went to samaria and mark "left that out" the absence "proved" that mark denied
now this is cerrtainly not a contradiction there is a difference between opposites and absence it just means that one gospel is not supported by the other not the one gospel denied the other it does not jesus DID NOT go to samaria- that is not based on what mark said. the absence is simply that. mark could agree that he did not include every story and every detail
he never wrote "jesus did not go to samaria
so i recommend not going to bible colleges because there the students read this approach and other bad ideas
in contrast to this we can compare what they DO say=the opposite of absence
if luke said that on the day "they must kill the passover" jesus ate the passover and then in the morning brought to pilate- that is what is revealed and we can compare it to john that the morning was the day that they will eat the passover a clear contradiction
one gospel, at least one is saying the opposite of the other, in contrast to that sample above where absence occurred- not opposites
so which did not have the holy spirit to help him
??
was it luke who lacked the holy spirit and did not know the true day
or was it john
or maybe both lacked the help of the holy spirit and gospels are merely text books
hmm
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה