Net2004

can you explain if the spit of your god had any divinity in it? if it had divinity in it why was "divine spit" unable to do a complete job the first time round?

elijah and elisha's miracles did not take 2 stages



"And they brought a blind man to Jesus and implored Him to touch him. 23Taking the blind man by the hand, He brought him out of the village; and after spitting on his eyes and laying His hands on him, He asked him, “Do you see anything?”

luke dropped this villager out of his story because the villager was loaded with money?

Net2004

Originally Posted by Duvduv
shotto


"If I may intrude with my own observation, the mini-didache in Matthew stands in opposition to Paul’s theology of faith. For Paul, we obtain righteousness through God’s mercy and grace by professing faith in Christ. For Matthew, we receive the reward of righteousness by correctly performing acts that demonstrate our faithfulness to God. According to the Sermon on the Mount, righteousness requires action on the part of the faithful. However, these cultic acts, all of which are known to Judaism, have only one correct method of performance, namely (1) with the aim not to impress other people but to please God and (2) in secret so that God “who sees in secret” will reward openly."

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/11/...torical-jesus/

sotto voce

Was it?

Take, take. No scholarship is even possible while statements are loaded.

That's not what I wrote. Can you get anything right?

Of course! That's how Christianity became popular. People said, "Look, here's another scam, like a tax. Ain't that just wunnerful. Who needs a government?"

:rolleyesa:

Net2004

if the blind man was from a village then i assume he was poor
if he wanted his vision back then he was a person who was in need of vision

"And they brought a blind man to Jesus and implored him to touch him. 23Taking the blind man by the hand, he brought him out of the village; and after spitting on his eyes and laying his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?”


what was right about your answer?

sotto voce

Everything. Because Luke did not report the healing of a poor and/or needy person that someone else did, does not mean that he was not concerned with the poor and needy.

Net2004

are you feeling alright? when you write your cv do you write , "i am an honest person" without giving examples? luke + matthew failed to tell the story . don't twist what i am saying, i didn't say anything about what was/was not concern for luke.

sotto voce

Do explain.

Chili

They were a different Jesus were they not? And does Mark's Jesus not go back to Galilee again where a 'daily dose of manna' must sustain him till he dies nonetheless? And is this not the same as what happened to the children Israel did who entered the promised land by parting the waters to get in?

And is water-walking here not symbolic for 'walking on faith' that should not know darkness at all? If you fast forward to Rev. 21:1 'the sea was no longer' but solid as rock and the 'light of common day' not needed in 22:5.

So then does 'darkness' while at sea [of Galilee] make Jesus a sinner in Mark? and human for sure? And does this not deny the Immaculate Conception in Luke for the Jesus of Mark?

sotto voce

Using impeccable netiquette and understanding of theology, explain why Luke and Matthew failed to include this pericope. As distinct from omitting it.

When you're ready.

Iskander

In the criminal law, an omission, or failure to act, will constitute an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") and give rise to liability only when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty.


The Divine Law imposes a duty to act with due care when recording the word of God. Luke was in breach of that duty and his failure to discharge his duty constitutes an actus reus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(criminal_law)