Jesus talked often about this Kingdom of God, in fact the word kingdom is used more than 120 times in the 4 gospels.
“But I tell you truly, that there are SOME standing here who will not TASTE death until they see the kingdom of God come.” Mark 9:1 Taste and death are important words here, and will come up again. Jesus alone would not see the kingdom arrive.
Dr. Bart seems to love that verse as it is several of his books. However he NEVER notes that it is also in Matt 16:28 and Luke 9:27. Many use this verse to show that Jesus was a false prophet, or that at least he was wrong here. Since 3 gospel authors included this verse, if they thought it was not true then it makes all three of them and Jesus look like idiots.
At the last supper, Jesus said, “for I will not DRINK again of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God comes.” Luke 22:18, see Mark 14:25 (Drink, Jesus will taste and drink the fruit of the vine)
At the crucifxion, After this, Jesus knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the scripture), “I thirst.” So they put a sponge full of SOUR WINE on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the SOUR WINE, he said, “It is finished.” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” John 19:28-30, see also Matt 27:48, Mark 15:36
This surely sounds like he tasted the sour wine (some translations use vinegar) and he drank it, without using those exact words. He rules from heaven, he has no rod of iron. Those who follow him do so are volunteers. Jesus does not need to sit on a throne here on earth.
Acts is mainly allegory, and Paul had no clue as to the arrival of the kingdom of God. Rev is mostly just made up.
Both Matthew and Luke used Mark so of course you find overlapping material. Why quote the derivatives when you can just quote the original, or as close to the original as we can get (maybe it’s from Q)? Which part of Acts is allegorical? The theology? Of course Revalations appears made up today. The author was writing about current events, not something that was to come (or at least not something 2,000+ years later).
Nearly all of Acts is not literal. Dr Bart and others have noted that Acts contradicts what Paul writes in his letters, this was done on purpose, it was no accident.
For those who are curious, there is a short online book: Plutarch’s Parable by Paula Gott. I can agree with quite a bit of ch 1-9, but not most of the rest. The chapters are short like 1-3 pages.
On another post you stated that we don’t know any of the authors of the gospels: Plutarch wrote Luke and Acts. Probably the greatest writer of his time, made up a lot of his conversations in the books he took credit for. Many of the conversations in Luke and Acts are also made up. Yet he convinced billions that they are literal, quite an accomplishment..
Of course the baby stories in Matt are not true. Luke contradicted Matt’s version on purpose. There are also hidden numbers in Luke.
follow-j said
Nearly all of Acts is not literal. Dr Bart and others have noted that Acts contradicts what Paul writes in his letters, this was done on purpose, it was no accident.
And you know this how? The mere fact that Luke’s version of events contradicts Paul’s, might be consistent with an number of
scenarios, but I fail to see any value in purposefully contradicting Paul’s account of his own experience. My suspicion is that Luke or whoever wrote Acts either did not know Paul or have access to any of his letters or he did not know Paul well enough to have discussed his conversion.
I think you mean accurate rather than literal. Either way it’s often convenient to dismiss any problem, inconvenient fact as not literal. What are the criteria for deciding something is not literal, metaphorical etc?
follow-j said
Jesus talked often about this Kingdom of God, in fact the word kingdom is used more than 120 times in the 4 gospels.“But I tell you truly, that there are SOME standing here who will not TASTE death until they see the kingdom of God come.” Mark 9:1 Taste and death are important words here, and will come up again. Jesus alone would not see the kingdom arrive.
Dr. Bart seems to love that verse as it is several of his books. However he NEVER notes that it is also in Matt 16:28 and Luke 9:27. Many use this verse to show that Jesus was a false prophet, or that at least he was wrong here. Since 3 gospel authors included this verse, if they thought it was not true then it makes all three of them and Jesus look like idiots.
At the last supper, Jesus said, “for I will not DRINK again of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God comes.” Luke 22:18, see Mark 14:25 (Drink, Jesus will taste and drink the fruit of the vine)
At the crucifxion, After this, Jesus knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the scripture), “I thirst.” So they put a sponge full of SOUR WINE on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the SOUR WINE, he said, “It is finished.” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” John 19:28-30, see also Matt 27:48, Mark 15:36
This surely sounds like he tasted the sour wine (some translations use vinegar) and he drank it, without using those exact words. He rules from heaven, he has no rod of iron. Those who follow him do so are volunteers. Jesus does not need to sit on a throne here on earth.
Acts is mainly allegory, and Paul had no clue as to the arrival of the kingdom of God. Rev is mostly just made up.
And what happened to it in the three Jewish Roman Wars, while Jesus was ruling from Heaven, as you say?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)