Response to Koop (fm Alan) by Paul -- McKinsey's Biblical Errancy Forum Group

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02:58:00 03/21/02 Thu
Author: Paul Angle
Subject: Response to Koop (fm Alan) by Paul

>From: "Alan Hanson"
>To: "Paul Angle" ,
>Subject: Anyone want to help with Koops?
>Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:54:44 -0800
>
>
>Koops wrote: From what I've read of your contradictions, I find it difficult to determine what kind of literature you believe the Bible to contain. The Bible is after all literature written by many different authors over thousands of years. And it is composed of many different types of literature: history, prose, poetry, letters, prophecy, and apocalyptic just to name a few. Each of these types of literature function in different ways. And the interpretation of the passage depends on the type of literature it is as well as the context of the verse. So for instance in Mark 12:26-27 you have failed to read the context and understand what is at stake here in this passage. In fact the contradiction you point out makes Jesus' point. Jesus in this passage has been questioned by the Sadducees about the resurrection because they do not believe in the resurrection from the dead. To answer them, Jesus points to the book of Moses quoting Exodus 3:6 where God states that he is the God of Abraham, etc. So in Exodus 3:6, God is refering to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as LIVING, thus demonstrating that the books of Moses teach the resurrection of the dead. Jesus sums up his argument by saying verse 27: "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living." So yes, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not living, as you and I know it, in this world, but that is precisely the point Jesus is making. They have been resurrected from the dead and God refers to them as living long after they have "died" physically.

[Paul:] Probably more than you wanted, but I'm bored, so I write....
It has been a belief of the Jews within all sects that God and only God could raise the dead if he so desired to do so. No man can do this, not the messiah, and certainly not Paul whoever he was. These stories of Jesus raising up the dead much less Paul claiming he had done the same would be considered blasphemy. No man has the power of God but God. It is believed God may work through a man such as Moses but the man does not decree the use of God's power, as in I decide to raise this person from death. I think our friend is confused on who the Sadducees are and the Pharisee's. The later writers of the Gospel tried to make the Pharisee's seem as enemies to Jesus but that is not the case in the texts. The name Sadducee refers to the line of priesthood of Zadok who were to be the Temple authority, the Sadducee at the reported time of Jesus were nothing more than appointed minions of Herod and not true to the hereditary line of priesthood, these Sadducees did not accept the messianic prophecies as being true, anyone claiming to be a messiah was a threat to them and their power. The Pharisaic group were the authorities of the law, 'the learned ones of the law' and it was to them the people looked to as the spiritual authority, the Temple Sadducee's were figure heads and in collusion with Rome. The Pharisee's also held the majority vote in the Sanhedrin which gave the Temple priests little authority in matters of the Mosaic Law. The zealot groups were for all practical purposes Pharisee's they both believed in the messiah prophecies and if you compare Jesus' teaching and interpretations of the law they are the same. Jesus even gives them accolades several times in the reported questions put to him regarding the law, he agrees with them and they he on his answers, he also states your righteousness must pass that even of the Pharisee's to enter the Kingdom. The Dead Sea texts people call themselves Messianic Sadducee's and claim they are the priestly zadok and should be in charge of the Temple. It was the first sign of any messiah to reestablish the Temple, the zealots sought to take control of the Temple and remove the current Herodian Priests. It is thought the story of Jesus entering Jerusalem as an official messiah claimant and then the driving of the money changers and clearing the temple by force was an attempt by him and his group to take the Temple grounds. This attempt failed and Jesus became a wanted man after this event by both the Temple authority and the Roman's for inciting a riot and disturbance. He laid low and moved about in secret during this time, the Pharisee's even warning him to leave various places to avoid the authorities. Many scholars have pointed to the details of this incident within the Gospel texts, the story of the man Barabbus is also a part of the temple incident, he is listed as among those who were arrested (he is called Jesus Barrabbus which means Jesus son of the rabbi, some have thought Jesus and this man were the same or that perhaps this was Jesus' son, why should they seek to allow this man to be free over Jesus, unless he fit the messiah framework more than the other). Since the messiah is a claimant to the Davidic throne of Israel, he would be in fact, King of the Jews and that would be considered an act of insurgence against the Roman occupation. This is what Jesus would have been executed for. The Romans even placing this title above his head as the Gospels state. Since he failed to fulfill any of the messianic prophecies and he was defeated and captured by the Roman's, evidently not showing he was the warrior king the messiah was to be, he would have had little support from the people, he would have been rejected and thought a little loopy. If you read the Gospel material this very thing is outlined, he was cheered entering the city as the symbolic messiah but when he failed to take the temple and defeat the Roman's he was rejected, his own family thought him insane. If Jesus were a real person and the Gospel accounts taken with any accord, he would have been thought more than a little weird, a false prophet and a false messiah because he failed to show the signs promised by God of the messiah to the Jews. He seems to have been some sort of cult leader estranged from the mainstream zeaots who were very militant because that was the nature of the messiah. Jesus has some rather strange things about him, he does not seem to have been married, he was always in the company of men, and he had some sort of disciple he loved quite differently than the others and they were very jealous of this relationship.

If you have read of the Secret Gospel of Mark by Prof. Morton Smith you know well how strange this gets. This gets a little off topic here but I find this very interesting and I believe it to be a mystery that brings about some serious issues: The issue of this 'beloved disciple' has been a mystery all along, Prof. Smith claims certain passages in Mark were removed which indicated Jesus did indeed have a strange relationship with this fellow and he comes off as being quite gay. I have these passages listed on my web site if you don't have the book. I offer this further fasinating information which apparently has eluded Christian's or else it was a further diliberate cover to erase the gay aspect of Jesus. We begin with our buddy John, we find John did not write this Gospel, and this John is certainly not the same one which wrote Revelation, AND I believe I can show John was not the 'beloved disciple' who wrote this Gospel we call John!! Let us observe the given texts:
1:15
John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

The writer here speaks as John being someone else other than himself, the writer. As we observe in the last of John:

21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

The writer states the 'beloved disciple' is JUDAS and that 'THIS IS THE DISCIPLE which testifieth of these things'. How's that for some brain candy??Things like this make this hold a fasination like nothing else I have encountered. Since Judas supposidly killed himself this is rather odd, but we also find Judas supposidly died in two different conflicting ways, and John of Revelation states the new city of Jerusalem has twelve gates for the 12 tribes and the 12 disciples to rule over. Quite weird isn't it?

P. Angle

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Re: further ponderings regarding John/Judas/ and the undead -- Paul, 03:15:17 03/21/02 Thu

A couple of things occured to me when reviewing John on the previous issue:

21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

"And [Jesus] said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that there be SOME OF THEM THAT STAND HERE, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." -Mark 9:1

"Verily I say unto you,there be SOME STANDING HERE, which SHALL NOT TASTE DEATH, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." -Matthew 16:27-28

"But I tell you as a truth, THERE BE SOME STANDING HERE, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." -Luke 9:27

Note in 21:23 again the disciples said among themselves the beloved disciple would not die and then Jesus says he will tarry, as in wait around. I'm wondering where these ones are who haven't died and if the beloved disciple is still waiting around on Jesus?????

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]