Ans so I ask you to forbid me not, if I do not follow with you.
Mark 9:38-39: 38 John said: Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us." 39 But Jesus said, "Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me."
I deeply have been developing my own version of Christianity only based on Mark and John only. Doctrine is startlingly different by just this small change.
I'd like to peacefully discuss according to the love Iesu commanded us to have for each other. I'd like to share my insight with you.
inb4: the books of Paul are secondary source that don't carry the same weight as the gospels
Fat chance. You're never going to get peace, in this life or the next, by attempting to be another Marcion and creating your own canon. Or proclaiming yourself a higher authority than any Council or Pope ever did.. by taking it upon yourself to make scripture canon. Even Luther, in all of his arrogance, never attempted something so retarded. Only the likes of Gnostics, Muhmmad, and other oddballs have. Let no be peace on you.
Justin Rivera
1. Say Jesus, this is an English speaking board and that’s his name in English 2. What are the differences in theology? 3. Why would it surprise you that arbitrarily removing books from the Bible removes certain doctrine? 4. What are your claims as to why Matthew and Luke would be illegitimate? 5. Do you accept Acts as legitimate? 6. Do you accept the Pauline epistles at all or reject them entirely? 7. What is your full scriptural canon? 8. Are you a trinitarian? I assume you would be as John is very explicit on this point, but a lot of people who do this kind of stuff aren’t 9. What are your views on the nicene creed? 10. Do you consider yourself Protestant? Catholic? Nondenominational? What is your affiliation? 11. Do you have any group or church, or are you just doing this alone? 12. Do you believe in the theology you create or is it just a hobby/personal exercise?
Carson Young
1. Jesus sure.
2. Jesus is more directly and clearly God himself. Arians probably always quoted Matthew and Luke. Jesus enters as God from heaven to John the Baptist, not a a Hebrew baby Almost everything that makes the religion connected to Judaism comes from Mathew and Luke. Otherwise Jesus just gives a nod of approval to Moses and Abraham here and there and that's as Jewish as it gets. I don't even think the disciples are Jewish according to Mark and John. It's really amazing when you see it. There's more but those are some highlights.
3. A point in my favor, you'd think the religions would be relatively the same no matter which gospel you read telling you the same story. But no, it radically changes things.
4. It seems to be an attempt by Judaism to undo the political damage done by merging Christianity with Judaism. Matthew and Luke known to be written in Hebrew originally. Mark and John known to be originally written in latin and greek respectively.
5. Honestly, I'm still researching my opinion on Acts, I've been to busy with the gospels. I know it's not included in the oldest manuscripts of the gospels that I use to study them.
6. I want to re-read Paul's gospels. I think any believer in Christ has something to offer, even if it isn't the infallible word of god, which I consider Mark and John to be on that level.
7. Currently just Mark and John. I'm on a mission to re-read everything to see how much it adds to the original core of just mark and John. But I haven't finished my research yet like I said.
8. What do you me by trinitarian? Do I believe in the trinity? I like to simplify it by saying Jesus is the God Moses wrote about. To debate the trinity is to try to understand the mind of God. Does that answer your question?
9. It seems pretty good except for the part about the virgin mary. I need to re-read it again.
10. I guess just totally independent.
11. Just doing it alone. Wondering if I stumbled upon an insight into what original christianity was like.
12. BELIEVE. I do this because I am searching for the truth. Christianity made a lot more sense to me after this discovery.
Luke Diaz
Isaiah is also mentioned once. And Elijah at the transfiguration in John. But that is it.
Luis King
So you're saying the sermon on the mount was subversion all this time? I freaking knew it! It fit too perfectly with cucked jewish subversion and normies idolized it to the point of acting as if that passage is Christianity alone. I knew something was wrong. Op, God bless you. I feel freed, like heavy chains have been lifted from my back.
Gospel of Matthew was initially written for a jewish audience. so personally speaking it minimize jesus being god to make the pill easier to swallow
Brayden White
It's not "known" at all when it comes to Luke. It's said by no patristic source or even any respectable modern scholar. He's the most skilled Greek writer of the the whole New Testament and employs known classical Greek (not Koine) literary styles (even the introduction to "Theophilus" is done in elegant Greek with their usual prefaces).
Mark and John are the most "un-Greek", as they were copied from the dictation of Peter and John respectively. Mark doesn't "read" like a typical writing at all, but is more like a play or screenplay, where it seems to be taken from sermons and oral teaching. Everything is presented with active tenses and fast pace. For example, when someone "said" something, Mark has it as "saying". As in "Jesus is saying", "Jesus is walking", "Jesus is going here or there", "Jesus is healing". It's like an action movie, if you will.. a story that tries to put you "right in the scene" and tradition has it that Mark got it from Peter's dictation/direct witness. It wasn't first meant to be a writing at all, but was preached and acted out a bit.
Matthew is the only one that has patristic witness that was written in Aramaic (not Hebrew), but any scholar would tell you that it's unclear where or how we got our Greek form now. Secondly, it was not Judaism centric. It reflects the Jewish Christian diaspora of Syria and reflects much of what the Apostolic Constitutions and Didache teach.
I'm the user in the first reply who didn't even want to give you the time of day, but it seems you need to be stopped from saying stupid nonsense more extensively. So here you go. You're not trying to seek any truth and you don't deserve peace for casting doubt on Apostolic witness.
Honestly I feel like it makes sense. Thank you for giving me your opinion though.
Julian Davis
What do you mean by legitimate? Luke (a Roman name) never claims to have witnessed what he wrote. Luke starts with him saying he is compiling eyewitness reports he has heard and thoroughly researched. Luke-Acts is written by the same person, and he switches to first person in parts of Acts, indicating he was a sometimes traveling companion of Paul and would've met quite a few disciples and apostles.
Gabriel Ortiz
It seems to be an attempt by Judaism to undo the political damage done by merging Christianity with Judaism.
Like a carefully calculated controll opposition sect of christianity that attached itself in the beginning and forced matthew and luke upon the mainstream
Eli Ortiz
Gnosticism never left, i guess
Julian Jones
The problem with your heresy is that without Matthew and Luke there would be no genealogical connection with the House of David, thus making the prophecy unfulfilled and Jesus' messiahship illegitimate.
Jonathan Thompson
The UPDV Updated Bible Version has tackled a number of these issues.
It takes the positions that:
Matthew is a complete mess of the original source material from which it was based. In the UPDV it was reconstructed rather than removing it entirely.
John and Luke are mostly intact except for their problematic and likely fictional beginnings and endings.
Acts is too far gone as a fictional work to be salvageable.
Ayden Thompson
...
Gabriel Barnes
Why do heretics have such a specific hatred for Paul?
Leo Turner
The authenticity of the Johannine comma is disputed if that's what you were talking about, but this isn't to suggest that denial of it should rest on that matter alone though.
Even without the genealogy there are still other perceivable prophetic connections.
John's would be the most divergent since it's the only non-synoptic. It's said Irenaeus believed there should be four gospels like the four corners of the Earth. And since then there appears to have been a desire to devise various other interpretative associations to a tetramorph.
The actual adoptionist belief that was declared heretical is that Jesus was adopted as the son upon baptism when the Spirit descended like a dove onto him and a voice from heaven came about saying "Thou art my son, the beloved, in thee I took well." Such a view would be doubtful of the more fanciful sounding virgin birth.
Other prominent heresies were about the precise nature and relation of the three parts of the trinity.
It removes the entire nativity account from Matthew. Reconstructing the Gospel of the Hebrews would be more useful.
A yes let's just rely on the clerical authorities with numerous discrepant views throughout the ages and with probably as many misunderstandings as modern scholars.
Oliver James
Because 1) they see St. Paul as an ebil Anti-Christ that subverted Jesus' message to the jews 2) they see St. Paul as an ebil bigot that hates gays and wahmens 3) heretics gonna heretic thanks prots
Caleb Bailey
It probably doesn't do it justice to describe it as "hatred" but a reason for it may be due to his attributed works being perceived as a cause for a lot of religious disagreement, and there are many of those who long for a way to mend these societal rifts. So not everything is necessarily a villainous conspiracy.
Colton Roberts
But Jesus' messiahship would be literally illegitimate. He would be a pretender to the throne of the House of David. The loyal Israelites that understand the scriptures and know it by heart would see this pretender and say "who is this a-hole thinking he can usurp God's authority?" They would have every right to kill Jesus as Jesus would be nothing but a false messiah that God never promised His children. You can't just make a prophecy and only fullfill SOME of it, espically when it comes to something as important as God's Son being the Messiah.
Eli Cooper
>(((updated))) Yes that never happens with an agenda in mind. I'm sure modern liberal scholars know much better than the fanatically faithful people who lived a mere few hundred years after the events happened.
Brody Carter
It's the virgin birth which evidently causes the most trouble. Different Jewish messiahs have also been declared throughout the centuries without being born of virgins.
John Evans
His prophecy about the destruction of the sanctuary seeming to have become true gave Jesus legitimacy as well.
Caleb Perez
Oh no it's not a conspiracy. I've just noticed a trend amongst modernists and Muslims.
John Stewart
Again, you can't just fullfill some of the prophecy, it has to be ALL of the prophecy. Jesus fullfills ALL of the prophecy with all of the books of the Gospel. You can't just pic and choose what to believe like a heretic. If you want to claim to be legit you have to fulfill ALL of the prophecies and show people all the prophecies are fullfilled. Thats how we are able to convert ALL people, jew and gentile.
Mason Cook
Well it doesn't look like that was agreed on by everyone and some feel that some prophecies were still unfulfilled. Not trying to affirm what's right or not though, just why.
Jonathan Brooks
Absolutely disgusting, go over to >>>/islam/ with that filth
Camden Howard
Go back to Zig Forums you just want your own race baiting religion without such inconvenient statements as those contained in the sermon on the mount
