PDA

View Full Version : Matthew 28:17-20



LadyCelt
September 21st, 2007, 07:49 AM
"17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[a] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.[b]"

This is part of one of my hard things getting over. I'm wondering if anyone else has any explanations to justify not being Christian considering this. This is more of a personal struggle I was wondering if people could help with. Thanks.

skilly-nilly
September 21st, 2007, 10:17 AM
I'm wondering if anyone else has any explanations to justify not being Christian considering this. This is more of a personal struggle I was wondering if people could help with. Thanks.

It's not something that believers would accept, but my belief is that Jesus didn't intend to proselytize nor create a new church and that the portions of the Bible preaching that are add-ins. I think that the early followers decided to start a new church all by themselves and (since the Gospels were written well past the end of Jesus' life and in some cases by believers who had not actually met Him) they 'remembered' things that supported their Path. Not even necessarily by design---people have notoriously unreliable memories.

I have not read the Gospels, but I did read a book that excerpted everything that is purported to be 'Jesus' teachings'. It was obvious to me that the same person isn't speaking in all cases---the collection is inconsistent in message and differs markedly in 'voice' from Gospel to Gospel.
I do believe that some of the reported teachings are actually what Jesus said; those parts which are so strange and counter to the beliefs of the day I think were remembered and put down because their incomprehensibility made them memorable.
The whole 'turn-the-other-cheek' philosophy, fr'example.

So (while it doesn't answer the teaching directly) I think that Jesus taught that we should listen to the Voice of God (or God/s/dess/desses) speaking to us and to live a good and considerate life.

Jesus hasn't spoken to me, so I go on living a careful (as in full of care, not cautious) life.

I wiki-ed the subject, if you want another opinion:

Since the versions of the great commission vary from each other, are attributed to the resurrected Jesus, and do not appear at all in some the earliest examples of the gospels--scholars of the historical Jesus (such as the Jesus Seminar) generally portray the statement as a later editorial addition to the text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commission

The Christian community traditionally ascribes authorship to Matthew the Evangelist, one of Jesus' twelve disciples. Augustine of Hippo considered it to be the first gospel written (see synoptic problem), and it appears as the first gospel in most Bibles. Secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus' ministry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Xentor
September 21st, 2007, 12:41 PM
"17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[a] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.[b]"

This is part of one of my hard things getting over. I'm wondering if anyone else has any explanations to justify not being Christian considering this. This is more of a personal struggle I was wondering if people could help with. Thanks.

Very easy to justify:


All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Really now? Prove it.

LostSheep
September 21st, 2007, 04:29 PM
The Christian community traditionally ascribes authorship to Matthew the Evangelist, one of Jesus' twelve disciples. Augustine of Hippo considered it to be the first gospel written (see synoptic problem), and it appears as the first gospel in most Bibles. Secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus' ministry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

I think the "evangelist" part is significant there; there was a lot of material added by the writers of the Gospels, which were written a while after Jesus's death, to suit the particular ends the writers wanted them to; the way John for instance emphasises how the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus, because at that time the early Christians wanted to keep on the right side of Rome.


I do believe that some of the reported teachings are actually what Jesus said; those parts which are so strange and counter to the beliefs of the day I think were remembered and put down because their incomprehensibility made them memorable. Yes, that's what i think; the bits that don't seem to fit in with conventional Christian teaching, I think, are more likely to be the actual ideas that Jesus expressed.

LadyCelt
September 22nd, 2007, 10:56 AM
thanks for the replies

Shanti
September 22nd, 2007, 11:02 AM
I think the "evangelist" part is significant there; there was a lot of material added by the writers of the Gospels, which were written a while after Jesus's death, to suit the particular ends the writers wanted them to; the way John for instance emphasises how the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus, because at that time the early Christians wanted to keep on the right side of Rome.

Yes, that's what i think; the bits that don't seem to fit in with conventional Christian teaching, I think, are more likely to be the actual ideas that Jesus expressed.
Thats the prob. All the bible stuff was written a very long time after Jesus death.
I doubt they have conversations correct since it takes humans only a few minutes of gossip to totally change what the first person had originally said.

Jesus didn't write anything down.
All his words in the bible are simply hearsay and thus useless IMO.

BenSt
September 22nd, 2007, 11:05 AM
I am not a Christian... but in my own Hindu Texts one of my Gods says something very similar.

My interpretation is two fold.

1. If he is speaking from a monotheistic qaulity, and is God incarnate... then he does have the power. From a faith based perspective ofcourse.

2. From the secular logical point of view. He is making a claim only... he cannot back up his claims with evidence becasue how can you prove something like that? I always like to see things this way: perhaps sacred texts are inspired by the Divine, but are the they necessarily written by the divine? If a religious leader says something... historicly and culturally speaking... always analyze the meaning or the causes between the words. I wont go as far as to say that he is wrong... but this is also the primary text of a Religion that worships Jesus...who said that. So is it not biassed source of material? It comes down to faith right... do you have faith that what he is saying is true? I don't have faith in what he is saying because he isnt showing any evidence, and I dont like to play into the old argument that "IF he says he is the Son of God, then he Must be the Son of God."

willa
September 22nd, 2007, 07:10 PM
Also, let's not forget that Jamie boy's translation wasn't always true to the original language - he took quite a few liberties to promote his own agenda.

zionwood
September 22nd, 2007, 09:21 PM
But, was LadyCelt quoting the KJV? Or some other translation?

willa
September 22nd, 2007, 11:11 PM
Well, you are correct there. It looks as though it's a translation from the Greek New Testament but, even in the preface, the translators admit "words and forms of English not in current use have been avoided" which leads one to wonder how true it is to the actual work.

LostSheep
September 23rd, 2007, 03:03 AM
it's more or less the same as the KJV, except for a few "thou"s and "lo"s.

LadyCelt
September 23rd, 2007, 11:31 AM
I looked it up on Bible Gateway so I'm not sure which version I used to put here. I know that words in Greek are hard to decipher like similar could be same etc.

MariThorn
September 23rd, 2007, 04:03 PM
Well, if you believe that all Gods are one God, which I see so many touting nowadays, and which I believe to be true. That there is one all powerful Truth that my mind cannot comprehend in its entirety, but that reveals itself to me through nature, history, etc. Then Jesus is simply saying to go out and teach what he has revealed to you. In this verses case it is his disciples, and it was what he had taught them. Now, I do not know about them personally, as I never met them. However, I can remember things from when I was 4 yrs of age and up (this includes conversations) with rather good ability. So, if something made such an impact on me, as the events surrounding the life, death, resurrection of Jeshua ben Joseph of Nazareth in Galilee, I don't think I would forget the details as I grew older. Embroider, a bit . . ,. perhaps, but somehow I don't think that the stories recorded in the Gospels are fabricated in a plot to ensare the populace in the baby religion, at that time, of Christianity. As for St Paul, yes the one many love to hate, he spent six weeks or more in Jerusalem talking with Peter and James before ever going out and preaching anything about Jesus. He didn't pull that out of his hat.

However, if your not a Christian, then the point is moot. If you believe, however that lets say Cernunnos is a God in his own right, and truly exists independent of all other deities. Then you would be in a quandry, irregardless of what branch of Christianity you followed and were trying to be a witch.

I don't, I think that the Great Mystery that does exist, and is known as the ultimate Truth which many religions around the world strive to eventually obtain complete knowledge of, revealed itself as Cernunnos to the Pan Celtic peoples all those years ago. If you still feel that that revelation is relevant today in your walk, then I don't see a problem in with this scripture.

As for the authority Jesus mentions, that is up to each individual to decide whether he is God and to proceed from there.

Just my two cents :)

wolfjan1
September 23rd, 2007, 05:01 PM
OK, the Bible is a book. Many gospels and chapters being written MANY years after Jesus' death, and according to the limited "world" view of the events of THOSE times.
There weren't that many people on the planet living in THAT area. (compared to the population now). Just like all religious "Bibles" it is an ancient accounting of history written by HUMANS.
While there are many good lessons in both new and old testaments, there are people out there that want to adhere to the rules of the time with no regard to the real lessons taught.
So, we are killing each other in the name of God? And nobody sees that as an oxymoron even when in the ten commandments it says though shalt not kill?
The ten commandments are pretty easy to blow off these days, especially by the "Christian Evangelists" and every politician on the planet.

gillian_greenleaf
October 20th, 2007, 08:39 PM
Very easy to justify: Really now? Prove it.

I think that's why we call it "faith!" :weirdsmil

wolfjan1
October 20th, 2007, 08:45 PM
Simple, to me. The books of the new testament were written 60 years and longer after he died. Several different accountings are smashed together, consistent or not.
The "King James" bible came along because the king didn't like the way it was written, and he had the translations changed from the original version.

Xentor
October 21st, 2007, 06:50 AM
I think that's why we call it "faith!" :weirdsmil

For that same reason, no justification is needed, rendering the question moot. However, the question was asked, which renders your statement a cop-out.

gillian_greenleaf
October 21st, 2007, 10:29 AM
Cop-out? A little hostile, don't you think? :spinnysmi At the bottom of every religion there's faith which doesn't require evidence ... pagan included. I wasn't answering the original question -- I was responding to a reply.

But, if you want my response to the original question ... in my experience it's not possible tot be a Wiccan and a Christian (I've tried to make these work), but you can be a Witch and a Christian. My interpretation of Wicca is as a specific (but very flexible) spiritual viewpoint that worships both a Goddess and a God. In the coven to which I once belonged, the Goddess was the superior power. My understanding of Wicca in this manner would mean that the trinity with God as the superior power wouldn't fit. I see the Bible as a cultural artifact with some but very little specific information and more important as a source of basic values. One of my problem with contemporary evangelicals is that they preach that's they're living a Biblical life, but they pick and choose what they want to follow. I also realize that the often translated series of books suffers from many errors and the direction of whoever was the dominant group in power at the time, e.g., King James was VERY directive in the KJV. I believe that Christ looks at today's Bible and is horrified at how his words and ideas have been warped to fit a very different agenda.

MariThorn has given me food for, however, down a line of reasoning I've also followed about the non-gender specific nature of the Creator. It's got me thinking. That's why I see myself on a path ... it's work and it's evolving. Perhaps the Creator will help me have greater insight. She's done that many times already.

Also, my understanding of Wicca might not be another's, and while this doesn't work for me, I can't say it doesn't for others. I can't do Wicca and Christianity; that doesn't mean they can't.

EvaLaFay
November 7th, 2007, 10:55 PM
Ah--the Great Commission.

This is an interesting debate. Here are my two cents.

I feel that yes, we are called to bring others the knowledge of Christ. However, at the same time, we must let the people judge for themselves. We must do this in a spirit of love and respect for those to whom God has put in our path to witness to.

As many of us have done--we must find our own path, and help those who are blind.

solinviticus
November 8th, 2007, 03:51 AM
I think that this might also be a key part of the passage
teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded youAnd in Jesus' own word what's the most important commandment? To love God and your neighbor as yourself.

You could interpret it to mean to tell people about 'Good News'

And while on the topic of Biblical Inerrency, I found interesting commentary in the Catechism of the Catholic Church

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living".

gillian_greenleaf
November 10th, 2007, 02:34 PM
So, we are killing each other in the name of God? And nobody sees that as an oxymoron even when in the ten commandments it says though shalt not kill?
The ten commandments are pretty easy to blow off these days, especially by the "Christian Evangelists" and every politician on the planet.

I think I'm right on this, but please correct me if I'm not. Isn't the original translation "Thou shalt not murder?" That has a whole different meaning from kill. Killing is the taking away of anyone's life -- people kill in war (which is legal), as euthanasia (legal in some places). Murder is illegal killing. The point is, not all killing is against Biblical injunction.

Cassandra2
January 10th, 2009, 10:47 AM
If Jesus is an invention of the early church, and he didn't say any of those things in the gosepels, why don't you ask him yourself? You can indeed ask Jesus to come to you astrally and have a conversation.

I recommend the following.

Light a candle in the morning
with a drop of olive oil and say this.

"If you be the Divine Son of God
then come before me that I may know you

Jesus the Christ shall visit me here"

That sounds like a nice, direct way of doing business with him. It's fair too. Believe me, he shows up.

Cunae
January 10th, 2009, 01:25 PM
If Jesus is an invention of the early church, and he didn't say any of those things in the gosepels, why don't you ask him yourself? You can indeed ask Jesus to come to you astrally and have a conversation.

I recommend the following.

Light a candle in the morning
with a drop of olive oil and say this.

"If you be the Divine Son of God
then come before me that I may know you

Jesus the Christ shall visit me here"

That sounds like a nice, direct way of doing business with him. It's fair too. Believe me, he shows up.

That's a very interesting suggestion! He might. But God is not tested, either. I think you would have to ask with faith that He's there in the first place. Maybe someone should ask instead Christ to be revealed in some event or dream, perhaps the descension of the Holy Spirit. It's important to remember the Gospels clearly reveal that Satan and demons instantly recognized Christ whenever they encountered Him. No one has to accept Him as their Savior just to see Him.

But I do agree that talking to Him, reading at least one book of the Gospels, is the way to start.

I've never doubted the words written in the Bible. They've been changed by translators and warped by those who try to interpret them, and the Gospels were written by authors of different backgrounds to different audiences, but I believe they are the inspired word of God nonethless.

Cassandra2
April 5th, 2009, 11:37 AM
"17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[a] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.[b]"

This is part of one of my hard things getting over. I'm wondering if anyone else has any explanations to justify not being Christian considering this. This is more of a personal struggle I was wondering if people could help with. Thanks.
I never had any problem with the things Jesus said. I know many here do not believe he said any of them! That's their perogative. When you take Jesus out of Christianity, then I guess you have a form of Judaism, or monotheism. Why call yourself a Christian at all? I have a cure for your woes.
I assume that as a spiritual practitioner of some sort you have contact with spirits? If you do, then why don't you ask Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified by Pontius Pilate to come and speak with you? You can then clear up your questions. I am not making a joke, here I am serious. Ask him if he reall said that, I would, and do!:smile:

Cassandra2
April 5th, 2009, 11:40 AM
I don't see why "just faith" is the whole answer here. Remember, Thomas doubted and demanded to put his hands in Jesus wounds. Jesus let him do that. God says "demand of me and I will answer you" "Come to me, and when you come, bring with you words."

Lahmi
April 25th, 2009, 02:47 AM
Ah--the Great Commission.

This is an interesting debate. Here are my two cents.

I feel that yes, we are called to bring others the knowledge of Christ. However, at the same time, we must let the people judge for themselves. We must do this in a spirit of love and respect for those to whom God has put in our path to witness to.

As many of us have done--we must find our own path, and help those who are blind.
nicely put.
For that fulfills both the 'great commission' as well as the
greatest commandments. :)