by iamwhoiam 52 Replies latest watchtower bible
Whoever wrote the Gospels was hell bent on inserting ideas and idioms which would later incite the Gentile world to massacre Jews over 5 continents.
What do you notice about Luke 14:26 and Matthew 5:43. Most of us here know our Bibles pretty well, what strickes you as the beginning of a Cult.
Whoever wrote the Gospels was hell bent on inserting ideas and idioms which would later incite the Gentile world to massacre Jews over 5 continents.
yeah, that whole forgive, don't judge, love your enemy, all that just makes me wanna go out and hunt some jews.
PS- take a crack at Mt. 5:43 what do you find about this passage. You can tackle Luke 14:26 if you want. Now as to the love message why did this Jesus character not give credit to the Sages who had been teaching this for centuries, why are their no debates with the Rabbis who had taught the full resuurection of all humanity, schools concurrent with this Jesus character. Do you find anything odd about the avoidance of this type of dialogue from 'Paul' and 'Jesus'. hmmm what was going on here. If you are the typical Protestant, JW, Catholic etc. why were you never taught the real history of the times.
Mat: 5:43
Love for Enemies 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor a and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies b and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Luke: 14:26
26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.
Matthew is self-explanatory and if Jesus didn't give the "sages" the credit for preaching that over the ages it was probably because they examplified the opposite.
As for Luke, within the context of that chapter, Jesus is explaning that to follow Him and His way ( Love, compassion, forgiveness and such) one must be against, even hate, those that oppose those very things, even if they be their own family or themselves.
Jesus reamed the scribes and the pharisess for their hypocracies and for using their influence to speak for God, just as Jeremiah did before him.
Obvioulsy it wasn't a "new issue", the whole "do as I say and not as I do thing" seemed to be an issue with the "priestly class" as it is still to this very day.
The fact that people can take isolated passages from the NT to make them presecute Jews just proves that epople are easy led and typically lazy and stupid, not that the writers were "jew haters" or anything of the sort, especially since they were Jews.
Well this is the point, were Luke and Paul who we were taught they were or did these accounts get the Marcion treatment or other editing from the Bishops.
Now is verse 43 Jesus says accusing the Jews 'Love your neighbor hate your enemy', such an idea is never found in the Law (Lev.) or Jewish writings, its a complete fabrication, a lie really.
Luke has Jesus telling people to prepare for a Jones Town Ending, Judaism was meant to be family oriented, wholistic in tha t God wanted all families to stay together which is evidenced by Jewish descriptions of the afterlife in Gan Eden. That verse alone should have given people the Uh-Oh moment. If you heard that at the Watchtower Study wouldn't that make you sit up straight and plan to get out. (think of the 'you must die for the blood issue' in Wt. articles)
How do you or any 'Christian' know anything about the Jewish Schools such as the Saducees or Pharisees other than what you read in the NT, which in reality comes off like Uncle Tom's Cabin depiction of people of color.
The Reliance of Luke-Acts on the Writings of Flavius Josephus
That there is some sort of a relationship can easily be seen by anyone familiar with the two authors' works. For instance, we find some historical references in Luke that could have been taken from the writings of Flavius Josephus. Luke's references to the census by Quirinius (Luke 2:1-3) and to the massacre of the Jews by Pilate (Luke 13:1) was given in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (18:1 & 18:3:2).
So the next question is this: how goes this "relationship"? Did Luke rely (either "copied" or "remembered") on Josephus? Or did Josephus copy Luke? Or could the relationship be explained by simply the authors sharing a similar cultural milieu and having access to similar sources? There are some compelling reasons for believing that Luke was "familiar" with Josephus' works. The reasons are as follows:
- Many details of the gospel of Luke have uncanny parallels in Josephus' works.
- Luke hit upon the exact same names of people Josephus used in his narratives. Since the names given by Josephus were merely examples (i.e. they were not that outstanding), someone with access to a different source would have come up with a list of different names.
- The manner in which historical errors were made in Luke-Acts betrays his source as Josephus.
- Perhaps more importantly, the similarities in uncommon vocabulary between Josephus and Luke, form the final proof of latter's dependence on the former.
All these cannot be explained by Josephus having copied Luke, or that they both shared similar sources. The conclusion that Luke used the works of Josephus (Jewish War, Antiquities of the Jews and the autobiographical The Life of Flavius Josephus) means that Luke's literary works (the gospel and the Acts of the Apostles) must be written later than Josephus. Josephus completed his autobiography (the latest of his three work mentioned here) circa 95 CE. This means that the earliest date possible for the composition of Luke's gospel is 95 CE.
. . .
http://webspace.webring.com/people/np/paul_tobin/lukejosephus.html
Here's one source on καθεξης
Baur, Arndt, Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon Of The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,
1) In order, one after the other of sequence in time, space or logic
1 Clement 37:3 "All are not prefects, nor rulers of thousands, nor rulers of hundreds, nor rulers of fifties, and so forth"
How do you or any 'Christian' know anything about the Jewish Schools such as the Saducees or Pharisees other than what you read in the NT, which in reality comes off like Uncle Tom's Cabin depiction of people of color.
Now you are just making blanket statements.
Granted most Christians don't put much thought into the different divisions of Judaisim, just as most Jews don't put much thought in regards to the many denomination of Christianity.
But that doesn't mean ALL.
There is no commandment to HATE your enemies, this is true, though in Psalms 139:22, we see hatred there:
22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
It is a stretch to take that verse and think it applies to what Jesus was saying.
IN Matthew the whole verse goes, "you have heard it said" NOT it is written, so obviously Jesus was making a comment on soemthing that was being express in his time, not to soemthin written in the Bible.
All these cannot be explained by Josephus having copied Luke, or that they both shared similar sources. The conclusion that Luke used the works of Josephus (Jewish War, Antiquities of the Jews and the autobiographical The Life of Flavius Josephus) means that Luke's literary works (the gospel and the Acts of the Apostles) must be written later than Josephus. Josephus completed his autobiography (the latest of his three work mentioned here) circa 95 CE. This means that the earliest date possible for the composition of Luke's gospel is 95 CE.
It may be quite possible that the final edit came that late.
PS- point being no one in the Jewish community was even saying those things, Jesus is making it up, or to be generous someone put those words in the text.
