Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Yes, I'm Back! Light-bearer, not Muck-dweller!

Here is an example of liberal-speak against Christians:

Unfortunately, fundamentalist zealots wish no part of 'coexistence.' They are patently certain that THEIR religion, THEIR God, THEIR theology is the only one.
And they will kill to defend it.

A local Ohio blogger posted this as a comment on his blog, www.Man with the Muck-Rake.blogspot.com. He also referred to religious right Christians/social conservatives as the most dangerous people on the planet.

He deleted my rebuttals, of course --because he really is NOT a champion of co-existance and proves it daily. He is also wrongly certain that people like me think "our religion , God and theology are the "only one."

As for saying we will kill to defend our religion. Well, some of the faithful WILL go to war to defend religious and other freedoms --but will not kill to eliminate dissent and people of other faiths. We don't want any part of hastening their departure into a Christless Eternity.

We know our theology/religion/God is not the only one. The only TRUE one, yes, but there are many false theologies, religions and gods.

As for "co-existence," that is my definition of tolerance --add "peaceful" as an adjective.

For Muck-raker, the former Liberal Democrat, tolerance and co-existence are synonyms with AGREEMENT. If you disagree regarding religion, morality/ homosexuality --and probably politics, you WILL be deleted on his blog. My son and I have been the only voices of dissent who dare enter his arena. I have to conclude his deletions are because our rebuttal comments are too good. Otherwise, why not let others read them? It's people who want to make sure their blog promotes only THEIR view who censor opposing viewpoint. They don't want any light to shine on their muck. That's his right in America --to censor his own blog opposition --but he wouldn't do it if he truly believed in co-existence and tolerance as he claims--and if he had effective rebuttal to make opponents look fallacious in their thinking.

I find deletions troubling for the implications regarding the bloggers' view of free speech. If they will stifle dissent on their blogs, would they vote for the stifling of dissent? Will they pay for the ACLU's efforts to change history, eliminating our national religious heritage, stifling religious expression and free speech on public property, removing the influence of ministers and politically incorrect Biblical preaching from the public airways, the military, the houses of government? How far would he go in his censorship --if he could have such power?

Censoring one's blog (apart from vile and profane language and endless, copied spam) means the blog-host does not believe in free speech and has no tolerance for opinions other than his own. This is not a person to put into a classroom, on a judge's bench, or into government service. Such a person is the epitome of intolerance--while protesting hypocritically that the other side refuses to "co-exist."

This is a classic example of Paul's admonition to "judge not--because you do the very same thing" --in this case, the blogger refuses to "co-exist" while claiming that Christians don't believe in coexistence.

If this weren't so sad --and also dangerous, it would be amusing. And I have tried to have a sense of fun in the disagreements --for which I was labeled as wrongly "sarcastic" --by a master of sarcasm in the blogosphere -- one who admits he himself sprinkles his blogs with a "smidgeon of sarcasicity."

The left wing of American culture seem to be pots calling the kettles black. But what's new?

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life." --the Bible


mud_rake said...

WEll well, barb, I lit a spark in you and, after a very long hiatus, from July 3 to September 4, you posted one new article.

Been a drought, eh?

Sometimes I go for hours without an original idea and then, BLAM! one comes to me.

That last one, something about those damned Democrats pretending to be righteous Christians, sure put 'them' in their place, now didn't it? The nerve of a Democrat to openly admit, to come out of the closed, so-to-speak, that they are a CHRISTIAN is more than you could tolerate! And I fully understand why: after all, you have been raised to be THE Christian, THE voice of Jesus, THE righteous one.

Too bad you are female, elsewise we might think of YOU as the Messiah.

So, you are the 'Light-bearer.' Light-bearer. I am humbled by this.

And I, well, it is time to confess, I am the Muck-dweller.Muck-dweller.

I suppose this conjures up the light/dark things of biblical reference: You- light and good; I- dark, bad.

Angel 'n Devil.

Funny, I've never thought of my self as the Devil, but I ought to take a look around to see.

[hang on a sec]

[he leaves, goes to the mirror in bathroom]

[he returns]

Sorry, barb, no signs of horns or wings, Guess that proves it.

Have fun with this new thread. I'll come back as often as you will let me. After all, you are the gracious host and I, sinfully, am not so gracious.

[he wipes a tear, exits stage left]

Barb said...

Welcome to the Land of Enlightenment! You honor me with your presence. Wipe your feet.

I don't even have to go for hours without an original thought. I've just been using them up on other people's blogs. Feels good to be home.

Actually, Rake, humility (and the Bible) compels me to admit that "there is nothing new under the sun," --not your thoughts or mine.

O I do know Christian democrats --who really believe in Jesus --but i don't know how they can stand voting for the party platform of rights to abortion and immorality. It's usually because they come from a long line of democratic forebearers in their families and were taught that republicans were selfish, uncompassionate, evil, etc. --which we are not--at least not inherently--not most of us.

All Christians are to be "light bearers." Jesus said we ARE and should not hide our lights under a bushel--but put them on a hill for all to see. It beats muck-raking all to heck. You should try it.

Say, I liked this comment of yours --much more fun than your usual dour approach.

mud_rake said...

Sorry barb that no one felt the need to comment here all day. I had 70 visits to my blog today and some of them clicked out on my link to this post.

Apparently they didn't think it was worth taking the time to comment.

Roland Hansen said...

I am aware of the mud person of whom you speak, Barb.
I have also read the comment here by the mud slinger.
Comments such as those made by the mud face deserve the same consideration as is put in the muddy comments --- NONE.
Mud mouth is low-life. No credibility with vicious, troll comments are reflective of low self-esteem, lack of self-confidence, and the intrinsic need to belittle others in order to feel better about oneself.
And that comes from this Jewish Democrat friend of yours whom you know well!
Respect does not require have the same religion; nor does it require we have the same politics; and it does not require that we think alike. You and I are as different as water and vinegar; but, you have my respect, Barb.
Bless you and keep up the good work.

Barb said...

Roland, are you running for office? I'm going to vote for you twice!

Do you really know this --uh, gentleman? or just his blog persona?

I have always appreciated your cordiality when I have participated on your blog.

I appreciate your view of me as a friend despite our differences. THAT is what "tolerance" is all about.

I'm willing to have that kind of mutual respect with Rake, here, also, but he has been persistently resistent.

mud_rake said...

Rolland is just pissed that I challenged him over at Toledo Talk on a few of his views.
I'm glad that at least ONE person read your posting today. I'd hate to think that you would have to go to bed in total dispair.

nighty-night and kisses!

Barb said...

MMMMMMMwah! Sweety.

YOu challenged Roland? I didn't know you could delete on Toledo Talk!

mud_rake said...

Barb said...
A blog for free-thinking Christians who have faith in the Bible

This is what you posted on my blog to lure folks here.

Here's a question: Can one be a 'free-thinking Christian' and not have faith in the Bible?

mud_rake said...

barb- I know of your difficulties relating to other people [the French blog, HistoryMike blog, my blog] and I worry about your OCD.

I'd hate to see you get your panties all in a large knot because you aren't able to vent your righteousness onto too many bloggers.

So, as an aid to your mental health, here is an entire blogroll of 'muck-dwellers' for you to chew on. Clearly, each and every one of them need your sanctifying grace lest they burn in Hell for all eternity.

Hope you enjoy the fishing:


Barb said...

Thank you, Man with the Multiple Personalities --nothing like a new mission field!

But I don't think my work is finished in the muck fields I've already waded into.

Barb said...

Can one be a free-thinking Christian and NOT have faith in the Bible?

I'm surprised you didn't say "How can one be free-thinking if they DO believe the Bible?"

Makes sense to me, that Whoever is saved is up to a sovereign God to judge --but it is up to us believers to proclaim and teach that faith in the Bible is probably essential for one to have faith in Christ--since the Bible is our source concerning HIm.

Faith in Christ IS essential for salvation--according to the Bible. Faith that He is the Son of God, crucified for our sins, resurrected as evidence of His Divine power and authority.

However, I've often said to you MR, that God can save anyone He wants, whether or not they fit the scriptural formula--that's HIS prerogative --but we cannot PRESUME that He will make exceptions or TEACH that He likely will --just because it seems reasonable to us that there are some people worth saving even though they don't have conventional biblical faith.

According to the Bible, NONE of us can be saved by our own merits --only by the Grace of God (note, not MY grace and mercy as you said; but HIS) because of the atoning sacrifice of the sinless Christ.

I freely think that the Bible is true. I feel free to ponder the ponderables and dispute the disputables of Scripture --those issues that caused the formation of denominations with their distinctives --the anaBaptists vs. Baptists, Calvinists vs. Arminians, Catholics vs. protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists, Weslyans (Methodists) vs. Presbyterians, liberal interpreters vs. orthodox interpreters of scriptures --etc. etc.

I freely think about it all.

You can define "christian" any way you wish. But in the New Testament, the Christians were first called that in Antioch --and they were BELIEVERS in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel so plainly stated in scripture: the miracle-working rabbi Christ crucified for our sins, risen, ascended and coming again. He is Master, Saviour, Lord --Prince of Peace, Lord of lOrds and King of Kings. and some day, "Every knee will bow and every tongue will proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord." Yet He is both Son of Man and Son of God --the Living Word of God incarnate --in the flesh. The only perfect and sinless man.

He is the one who confirmed everlasting punishment vs. everlasting reward --according to our unbelief or belief --and belief starts with Jesus' first sermon, "REPENT for the kingdom of Heaven is here and now!" The kingdom began with Him.

We are called to join a Kingdom that starts now --to join a family as "children of God" --"to all who believed, He gave the power to become children of God." And the first step is repentance.

We are sheep of the shepherd for whom He sacrifices Himself to bring us into the eternal fold.

Believe or not --it is your choice. Think freely.

You will say that it isn't free thought it there is a threat of Hell over the choice to not believe --but it still IS free thought --to choose wisely or to be a fool who says there is no God.

Granted, all the benefits are promised for the faithful --and there is a big risk to unbelief. The freedom to think and choose still exists for believer and unbeliever alike.

mud_rake said...

So, what's the answer to my question?

mud_rake said...


Barb said...

Can one be a 'free-thinking Christian' and not have faith in the Bible?

I thought I answered this thoroughly--but you want a yes or no answer, and it's not that kind of question.

I had said this: "Makes sense to me, that Whoever is saved (a Christian) is up to a sovereign God to judge --but it is up to us believers to proclaim and teach that faith in the Bible is probably essential for one to have faith in Christ--since the Bible is our source concerning HIm.

It depends on what you call "faith in the Bible" and what you call "Christian." I think you have to have faith that the stories of Jesus are true, or you are not a Christian in the classic sense --not a believer.

If you want to redefine "Christian" to mean someone who agrees with Christ's teachings, the answer could be yes.

But by common definition, a Christian is not just a Christ-follower in terms of his teachings on love, etc. --but one who ALSO BELIEVES that Christ was born of a virgin, did miracles, died for our sins, rose from the grave, and is coming again.

A Christian also has certain lifestyle attributes --otherwise he is a hypocrite. He can stumble and fall --but he cannot dwell in sin and be a saved Christian. It's one thing to sin and repent and quit the sinning --or resist it and feel remorse over failure--quite another to persist in a sinful lifestyle and feel good about it --celebrate it (lust, adultery, dishonesty, immorality, etc.)

Now, on YOUR blog, you don't answer the question of whether or not you believe in God (and Christ) as Divine, intelligent, Creator-God. You said it was off topic when it really was pertaining to your marvelous video of what the Hubbel telescope reveals --creation.

You have some bloggers believing you believe in God, though, obviously not the Bible --but if you do believe in God, He surely is of your own imagination and supposition --rather than rooted in any revelation the bible calls TRUTH --since you call the Bible "myth"--"tribal box," etc.

short answer --no, I don't think you can be a free thinking or any other kind of Christian if you think the Bible is myth.

Barb said...

However, That does not mean that one has to be a complete "literalist" about everything in the Bible in order to believe in Jesus.

For example, I do think one can be a Christian without believing the whale swallowed Jonah (I think it did) --and I do believe you can have a saving faith in Christ without being a literal 6-day Creationist.

But the "fundamentals" of the faith for me include believing that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb, atoning for all our sins. That he rose from the dead and went to prepare a place for us --that He is God's Messiah and Savior for all --that He will be the judge on the last day who separates believers from unbelievers.

mud_rake said...

[before I even clicked in to this House of Righteousness, I bet myself that you'd have more than one comment. Your OCD is quite noticable]

mud_rake said...

But the "fundamentals" of the faith for me include believing that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb, atoning for all our sins. That he rose from the dead and went to prepare a place for us --that He is God's Messiah and Savior for all --that He will be the judge on the last day who separates believers from unbelievers.

Would you belief in Jesus be diminished if none of the above were true?

Barb said...

you also posted twice --several times. I do it to break up the length. Do you have OCD, like your father, and thus think you see it in me?

I don't know why you would call blogging faithfully, debating, OCD. OCD is more about hand-washing, re-checking the stove, the front door locks, avoiding sidewalk cracks, counting over and over again, doing things repetitively and rhythmically, never trusting your memory, etc. etc.

I wouldn't think it had anything to do with religious involvement --except for the vain repetitions of Catholicism in the rosary and other repetitious ritualistic practices and guilty thoughts that make one nervous and unable to "rest in the Lord." Some one who is chronically spiritually insecure and afraid that God will damn him for every little imperfection--so he bathes too much or whatever mannerisms go with OCD.

Posting and keeping an eye on my posts looking for replies is not OCD for me --it's just more interesting and easier than some other things I ought to be doing.I justify it because I think the topics are really important and that contending for the faith (and right thinking) is a Biblical mandate. It's just fortunate that I enjoy and find easy at least ONE thing that I am supposed to do as a believer.

You will call such confidence in my thinking arrogance --but it's not confidence in me --as much as in what I do believe --whom I do believe.

Would I believe in Jesus if none of those things the Gospel says were true? No. I'd believe he was a teacher and a good one --but I wouldn't believe He could save me. I wouldn't know of any hope for heaven apart from His promises and His resurrection. I wouldn't call myself a Christian.

be sure to see what I posted on your blog. John and Peter and Paul --they believed --they believed exactly what I believe. I'm in the tradition of believers described from the beginning. Only I haven't performed any miracles that I'm aware of --as they did in Jesus' name and by His power.

though I don't know that God has NOT done miracles in my behalf. I've certainly been healed and known others to be healed of serious problems. But not as in "the lame walk, the deaf hear and the blind see."

as in that wonderful song, "Go and tell John --what you see and hear!" They knew at the time that their claims about Jesus were fantastic, hard to believe --but they had seen and heard and experienced Jesus Christ and His resurrection power.

mud_rake said...

No. I'd believe he was a teacher and a good one --but I wouldn't believe He could save me.

Save you from what? Surely you don't believe in that mystical place called Hell, do you?

Besides, you ought to 'save' your own self rather than believing that some man 2000 years ago did something for you.

Save yourself by becoming the best human being you can be. By giving love to others and helping them to be the best human that they can be.

After all, we are human, not divine.
sorry to step on your old-time parade, but that 'died for your sins' stuff is something to worthy of a visit to the psychiatrist.

You ought to grow up and start acting like an adult and take care of your self...and others without clicking your ruby heels together and saying magic words.

Rob R said...

'died for your sins' stuff is something to worthy of a visit to the psychiatrist.

How do you know?

Barb said...

I certainly agree, Mud-man, that people should mature --grow up --as St. Paul said, "put away childish things."

There is nothing contradictory about being Christian and being the best person one can be.

The great comfort at a Christian funeral is salvation from death--the possibility of eternal life because Christ defeated the grave.

I do believe there is a Hell --or place of eternal separation from God. C.s. Lewis suggested people would be alienated from everyone in Hell. Someone else suggested Hell might be waiting in a long line --said facetiously, of course.

At some point the bible does describe it as a lake of fire. Jesus did, actually.

We don't like that -- but Hitler, Stalin, the trade center bombers, those who beheaded Daniel Pearl and others probably deserve it. I don't like to think about such a place --but there is certainly room in the universe --perhaps a star or a black hole --or some molten center of the earth--where the wicked will go. The question is --are unbelievers necessarily wicked? I'm not taking any chances.

If Hell were just an empty threat for people who will be given yet another chance to repent and believe --once they see the truth about Christ and God for themselves --I wouldn't mind a bit.

In the meantime, the Bible promises that our faith will save us --our faith in the resurrected Jesus as our Saviour.

I can understand this being hard to believe --the bible says, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for." Jesus said to a woman who was healed by touching him, "Your faith has made you whole." He said even a little faith, as a grain of mustard seed, was powerful.

I'm putting all my eggs in the faith basket and don't know why anyone wouldn't.

But it is our sin nature that makes us rebel against God, His Word, the early church teachings about Christ. That makes us grasp at a fiction like evolution. That makes us ignore the reality that sin is the cause of all the misery in the world.

Save our selves for eternity? As you said, we are human and not divine. It takes the divine to save us.

mud_rake said...

St. Paul said, "put away childish things."

One wonders to what he referred. I wonder if he would think that fundamentalists, who hijacked the message of Jesus, are those children. After all they believe in magic, miracles, and lightening bolts from the sky.

So does my 4-year-old grandson.

Barb said...

Here is the quotation in context:

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Christians certainly realize we don't know all there is to know about God, heaven, hell, creation, the universe and we should feel free to ponder beyond what Scripture teaches --but not in contradiction to what it teaches--though we do freely discern by comparing scriptures that some teachings are for that culture and not rules for today --like the rabbinical dietary laws, etc. There is a lot in the New Testament to free us from legalism without compromising the basics of good and evil and God's design for our created bodies.

We believe that God did the miraculous through Jesus and then in the lives of the first century followers --and there are reports of miracles today (and I don't mean images of Jesus or Mary appearing on toast). There are many who know that faith changed them --that God touched them with his love "and now I am no longer the same," says the song.

A church with pedophile and pederast priests does so much harm --but faith communities where people really believe, worship, study the Word --and preach a loving Good News --about a Christ who forgives us when we fall --like a shepherd with a lamb who gets out of the fold --to think of Jesus as loving instead of spooky as so often depicted in Catholic churches with their minor mode music and sometimes grotesque religious art --(from a child's point of view) --with their hand-whacking angry nuns --and Mother Theresas with no joy of spiritual experience with God --(due to bad doctrine, I'd say) --God bless Mother theresa for her life and faithfulness, none the less. She needed to spend more time in the company of TV's jolly Mother Angelica --that sweet little old saint.

It's no wonder you lost or never had faith in the Jesus of miracles coming from a parish with a priest like you describe.

While Paul says he put away childish thinking --the following is also true:

13People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

16And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

The touch of a godly, sinless man --not a pedophile.

mud_rake said...

Say, barb, I hate to appear OCD with 2 postings in a row, but now that you brought up Paul I have a question for you. In that he is the earliest of the canonical Bible writers of the NT, do you find it odd that he never describes Jesus' birth story [the Kings, angels, virgin birth, the star]? Not once does he refer to this [neither does the 2nd oldest writer, Mark].

Odd isn't it? I mean, if writers like Paul and Mark, clearly the two earliest writers, fail to mention this, then maybe it wasn't really true?

I'd hate to spoil your day with this bit of fact, but it seems to me that if I were writing a 'history of Jesus' I'd want to mention the visit of the Magi, the gold, frankincense, myrrh, angels, star, and of course, that magical virgin birth. It sure would make my 'story' much more compelling.

What do you think?

Barb said...

What? you don't believe in lightning bolts?

Barb said...

What do you mean when you say fundamentalists have hi-jacked the message of Jesus? Explain.

Barb said...

I thought that was odd, too, when I heard about it --that Paul doesn't speak of "born of a virgin" in reference to Christ. But he does speak of Christ's resurrection and his soul-saving function, his sinless life and the necessity of faith in Jesus. His own miracle on the Road to Damascus convinced Him that Jesus was no mere mortal.

I understand that scholars believe Luke got His story from Mary and Matthew ? got his from Luke --not sure --rusty memories --

But I think it's very possible that paul had not heard this story during his early ministry. Jesus' birth as a human on earth was not part of Jesus' preaching --though he did make claims to be one with the father --"If you've seen me, you've seen the father --the Father and I are one."

I don't think the virgin birth, etc. was a common teaching in their day --it would have been a distraction --until Luke interviews people and gets the account straight from Mary --who He says, "pondered all these things in her heart." She can't, after all, go about telling everyone she's a virgin giving birth --without bringing accusations that she is a liar --bringing trouble for her son before His time, before He's grown, and for the wrong reasons.

Is the virgin birth necessary to the story? I would guess it didn't occur to Paul --for whom Jesus was clearly from God, a Man of miracles, a resurrected messiah and Savior. That was good enough for Him. the spirit of God in Christ was sufficient. The resurrection and promise of resurrection for all who believe in Christ.

So you could question the virgin birth --but John also believed --in saying "and The Word WAS God --and became flesh --and dwelt among us." God in the flesh --they DID believe that.

The Christmas story is the most beautiful, joy-giving story of all times --I believe it. We enact it every year in drama, costume and song --it's the most important part of our family's celebration --

I won't go down in history in God's sight as a fool for believing --be it true or not. Faith in the Word of God as true will be rewarded --even if we later would find that not every detail was exactly as recorded --

God will not hold us accountable for having too much faith in the written Word or the Word Incarnate --

Reminds me of what i tell the Jehovah's witnesses --who think the rest of us have wrongly elevated Christ to God's level --I tell them, if we are mistaken in our belief in the Trinity, God will not blame us for that --because His word says, "Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that jesus Christ is Lord." I see no where in the scriptures, I tell them, that God the Father is jealous of JEsus Christ. He raised Him from the dead, after all--and empowered HIM to raise people from the dead, heal the deaf, blind, lame, dumb, demon possessed --and the lepers.

And he preaches deliverance to the poor and the captives.

No, God is not jealous of the Son.
And when John says "God gave His only begotten Son" --divine parentage is implied even though He didn't write the Christmas story as Matthew and Luke did.

We can ponder some things and do it on scriptural grounds --as you say because Paul didn't mention the virgin birth--but I would be very careful not to weaken the faith of a child or a weak believer --lest he doubt everything in scripture. The most important part is Christ's salvation of our souls, the promise of resurrection because He arose --because it is the Will of God to give us this chance to be redeemed from Satan's clutches --and the jaws of death.

MY DNA will be reactivated! It is recorded with my name in the Lamb's book of life-- that great computer of God's-- because of my faith in Jesus' blood shed for my sins.

I DO believe however that all the Bible is true, warts and all. But worship of the inerrancy of the Bible is not right -but we are to worship Jesus and believe what is said of Him in the Bible --those basics.

I have 2 ponderables in the bible that I dare to speak --the passage on snake handling and walking on fire taken literally (scholars say the passage may have been an insert, not found in the earliest manuscript) --and the one where Paul tells young Timothy in a letter to him why HE doesn't allow women to teach or lead in church. The rationale he gives there would be contradicted elsewhere in scripture. Of course, Paul didn't say he was writing scripture at that point. And I would take the snake handling and fire walking to be allegorical for what the church would experience in the future. They will deal with human snakes and walk through fire, etc. for jesus' sake.

Two of the north Korean medical missionaries found that out recently when they went to be helpful in afghanistan and were killed by the Taliban instead.

It is fine to question and honest to doubt --but salvation is in the faith like a child's

And when it comes to children first learning of death, or even dealing with terminal illness, I am so glad to be able to tell them the Christmas story, the Easter story --and about the love of jesus for their eternal souls --that they need not be afraid to die --for God loves and will keep them always --in a place with no more sorrow, tears, disease or death.

Even before Christ came for all, the Psalmist David wrote, "The Lord is my shepherd -Surely goodness and mercy will follow me all the days of my life-and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever." What a comfort for little children --and old ones too.

Rob R said...

do you find it odd that he never describes Jesus' birth story [the Kings, angels, virgin birth, the star]? Not once does he refer to this [neither does the 2nd oldest writer, Mark].

Paul is writing to churches for specific reasons. His epistles which deal with a wide variety of details are not intended as exhaustive systematic descriptions of what Paul believed. What you get in an epistle is one half of a specific conversation, Paul's half.

Mark is not only the oldest writer, he is the most concise and focuses only on the ministry of Jesus.

If Paul covered everything, we probably wouldn't need twenty some books in the new testament. If Mark covered everything, there might not have been any other gospels written. We have so many books because they all have something important to contribute that you won't find in the other books.

mud_rake said...

It apears that both of you are quite ignorant of the history of the writing of the Gospels.

I shall not question your knowledge any further.

Barb said...

So you say, muddying the waters as usual.

You seem ignorant of the fact that there are many historical and scholarly perspectives regarding the authorship and origins of scripture.