It's recorded in the bible and has been taught for years upon years. The only difference is in scholarly opinion of whether the events truly took place. The point I'm making is the story is in the text that a great mass of people read and utilize as a major part of their religious belief systems. The scholars opinions are moot in this context and based on the text itself that has been established and accepted since Constantine.
"sin" is so amorphous as to be without meaning. Jimmy Carter said that he had sinned by desiring another woman outside of matrimony. ok? Jimmy's sin was without action. So What is sin? Is it in the mind? Or is it in the action?
It is a state of being, an existential circumstance. In a Christianist framework, sin is a state of separation from God.
or "I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you." ― Genghis Khan Christian? or not Christian?
Translated to make sense to Christianists? The Chinese words for sin translate to crime and exceed. Inasmuch as Chinese notions of sin suggest violations of limits established by supernatural or divine powers, there is a similar sense of separation, for if he who offends Heaven has no one left to pray to, then yes, he is isolated and alone. And as an existential circumstance, plagues, wildfires, invasions, and other such catastrophes can easily be construed as resulting from transgressing the boundaries of what life prescribes as good. Which brings us back to Carter: In his case, that particular sin is explicitly enumerated, along the way, but there is also something of the taskmaster's easiest impossible rule; if you have time for lusting after that hottie over there, then you have time for something more useful. In modern times, perhaps it seems petty, but for the pious, the avoidance of sin is supposed to be a matter of praxis insofar as collision risk, and thus the need to avoid, is greatly reduced if one generally eschews such intersections. And as we await the inevitable news of an American icon passing from this life, it's worth reflecting on the point that James Earl Carter Jr. is the sort of Christian who might consider such questions of sin without sounding ridiculous. Thinking back over the period of our own community, here, I can only wonder how different our discussions of religion would have been if, in the world outside our window, the majority of Christians were at least as enlightened, sanguine, and blessed in their faith as Jimmy Carter. Think about how much pain, and harm, and sin Americans could have spared themselves and everybody else in the years since his presidency.
“It's recorded in the bible and has been taught for years upon years.” Yes and so has a 6 day creation and global flood, no one thinks they actually happened. “The only difference is in scholarly opinion of whether the events truly took place.” I think that is important, do you not want to know what Jesus really said and did? “The point I'm making is the story is in the text that a great mass of people read and utilize as a major part of their religious belief systems.” Yes they do, because they think the story is true, would they think that if they knew the story was not in the original manuscripts? “The scholars opinions are moot in this context and based on the text itself that has been established and accepted since Constantine.” If you just want to ring fence the story and ignore it historicity completely then then yes, it has moral lessons.
Ring fence the story? What does that even mean? They are presented for a reason, and typically it's to convey a principle. Did these events happen? I wasn't there, but the common census is yes ... they did happen. And if they didn't? The difference? I would suggest none, but given a name was chosen, a man identified, and the long history since, I'll suggest these teachings attributed to the Jewish teacher (Rabbi) have been rather influential if not responsible for a great mass of people's basic understanding of the necessity of an honest and truthful spirit, namely the spirit of truth. So, if they are simply made up stories without real historical relevance, they are still valid as teachings about honesty and truth, which extends far beyond these religious roots and far into the future per physics, Astro physics, quantum physics, and every other fact driven system in existence. As a Christian evolutionist, I'm bound to honor truth as it presents itself as such, particularly after objective validation has been met. Beyond this, I am likewise obligated to honor my subjective truth as a unique individual.
“Ring fence the story? What does that even mean?” It means take the story on its merit alone, not in context. “They are presented for a reason, and typically it's to convey a principle.” Yes that was kind of my point, to take the story on its merits alone, out of context, you can ring fence it (away from Jesus, Bible, religion, ancient times) “Did these events happen? I wasn't there, but the common census is yes ... they did happen.” That was not my point, the story could be an account of events that happened and they could have involved Jesus, my point is consensus is they were not in the original book of John. The story was added later. Besides the fact they are not in key Greek manuscripts the writing style is different, it was written by someone else. “And if they didn't? The difference? I would suggest none, but given a name was chosen, a man identified, and the long history since, I'll suggest these teachings attributed to the Jewish teacher (Rabbi) have been rather influential if not responsible for a great mass of people's basic understanding of the necessity of an honest and truthful spirit, namely the spirit of truth. So, if they are simply made up stories without real historical relevance, they are still valid as teachings about honesty and truth.” That’s fine, people can get their morals and philosophy from where they want. “which extends far beyond these religious roots and far into the future per physics, Astro physics, quantum physics, and every other fact driven system in existence.” I disagree, Science is built on scepticism and scientific method. The Bible and religion is based on revelation and faith not facts and the scientific method, if it was we would just simply read it to find out exactly what happened 2600 years ago. Do you think that everything in the OT is factual? NT? “As a Christian evolutionist, I'm bound to honor truth as it presents itself as such, particularly after objective validation has been met. Beyond this, I am likewise obligated to honor my subjective truth as a unique individual. This I can relate to, I described myself as a Christian & student of science and after landing my first job, a Christian scientist although I was in fact a technologist (not important) I came to lose my faith eventually, but I am still interested in the life of Jesus and the Bible.
Luke was the first of the gospels to be written. The story is in Luke also. It's not surprising that it was likewise added to John. Skepticism and religion go hand in hand ...obviously. I guess this is true in scientific fields of study or research also. As a student, I'm required to rightly divide the scriptures .... To show myself approved. Given the nature of my root system of faith, and how truth is championed and deception ridiculed, I'll suggest that it may be true for some that religion doesn't merit truth, but for others it most certainly does. People like myself, for example ... I'm required as a student to rightly divide and to honor truth. Faith? Well, it's evidenced in life by our actions. Do you think they will ever find cures for things like parkinson's or diabetes or cancer? Efforts are made with that hope and perhaps one day these efforts will manifest some evidence containing the substance of these hopes. Until then, efforts are being made.
I may be mistaken about Luke being the first of the written gospels. I did learn it to be over the years though.
"Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources. The authors of Matthew and Luke both independently used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with a collection of sayings called "the Q source", and additional material unique to each." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
Nice, I thought it may have been Mark. I've read that also. I learned the first was Luke about a decade ago. It was in question, so thanks for the clarification. So, it was recorded in Luke, which from what I've read came before John, so I'll assume the Q source contained the story also. I've not heard of that source, but I'm a laymen theologian and my resources somewhat limited per personal unawareness of them.
Mark was written around 70CE Luke and Matthew 80-85 and John around 95. None of those originals now exist, the oldest fragment is in my city library from John, P52. Lots of interesting things about the Gospels which is why I have been studying them but that will go off topic.
I started studying the gospels when I was about 19 years of age, and I started out of reverence for my grandfather, who had been positioned a speaker role at a local church. I started attending much later. It all started out from that reverence, then it became a religious thing, then it became an academic, which has been ongoing for about 20 years now. At 52 I'm still limited in this particular academic, but I enjoy it, so I continue to study. Only I quit limiting my studies to Christian theology several years ago. It's a political fueled religious academic that I have found useful and burdensome, but it's worth the effort in my opinion. Not to go too far off topic, I've found lots of truths presented in the gospel texts, most of which follow along nicely with the abrahamic views presented prior in the OT. Jewish folks rarely agree, and this is likely due to them being privy to elements of their faith system I am not, and perhaps vice versa. It all corresponds one way or another across the board, though. To get back on topic, why do you thing Jesus was illustrated as both an antagonist and protagonist in relation to Jewish religious cultures?
I think Jesus was both. He taught the law according to his beliefs, exactly what they were will be debated for a long time yet no doubt. Consensus? He was a pious Jew so strict adherence to the law of Moses however there are examples where he bent the rules. He was an apocalyptic preacher, i.e. he thought the world as we know it was coming to an end and god would establish his kingdom on earth. Son of Man, Messiah, god son of god? Who did he think he was and what was his place in the new kingdom? For me right now? King, elected by Yhwh, chosen by Yhwh NOT god. He was a champion, a protagonist for this line of thinking at time that started with Daniel (first apocalyptic writings) This brought him into conflict with the Jewish holy establishment, so he was also an antagonist.
