Chili

Unless the argument from silence suggests that Gospels are to stand on their own and are not supposed to be part of religion. It is my contention that the Gospels begin when religion ends and that religion ends when the Gospels begin in answer to our unspoken prayer of things unseen that are hoped for.

I actually hold that the Gospels take place in what we call Purgatory where religion is not and that religion is where Purgatory is not with the birth of Christ in the mind of the believer being the difference between these two.

Wads4

Does this actually mean anything-if so, what?

Chili

It means exactly what it says.

Wads4

Repetition is not Explanation

Chili

The argument from silence here is that instead of searching the scriptures for eternal life we might be[come] witness to Jesus in that life . . . and there is a difference (Jn.5:39-40).

Let me point out here that "Christology" is absurd speech, really, because Jesus himself did not become Christ until he was crucified and left the scene soon after that. If that is true the omission of 'Jesusology' in the pastoral letters of Paul served him well until the great Reformation made it "the antichrist" in Christendom to be worshiped as an end in itself.

This lie is confirmed in soteriology where Jesus is both 'the way' and the end to be worshiped without end.

"There are two great divisions of the doctrine of Soteriology which we shall pursue; first, the basis of salvation resting upon the work of Jesus, in His atoning death; and second, the application of that work in the salvation of the sinner. First would be salvation bought and second salvation wrought first the foundation or basis or ground of salvation, second the nature or application of salvation to the individual sinner." Soteriology

Salvation is neither bought nor wrought except by the sinner and to this end Jesus only showed us the way.

This means that the Gospels come into play after salvation and religion leads us unto salvation . . . wherefore these two do not mix except for the occasional foreshadow of things to come.

Wads4

Back to square one: Does this actually mean anything?--etc etc. Perhaps it means something to you, but it is wasted on wicked atheists, -and strangely, I find I can manage very well without it.

chapka

Glad you asked. Let's see if we can work it out.

This does not mean anything, at least not in English, because it's not a complete sentence. It would be pointless to evaluate the "unless" clause, because it has no object.

Now, here's an independent clause we can sink our teeth into. Clearly, Chili is attempting to make some sort of separation between the Gospels and "religion." However, s/he does not define her/is terms, and therefore there's no real content. In order for this clause to be meaningful, you would have to define both the term "religion" as Chili is using it and the terms of separation; are the implied "beginnings" and "endings" philosophical, chronological, or what?

There are a lot of pointless words in this clause, but it really just boils down to "because we want it."

Add a comma between "not" and "with," and this actually forms a pretty good sentence.

Again we have a separation between "religion," still undefined, and "Purgatory," which of course has a very clear definition. Unfortunately, that definition makes no sense in the context of this post unless we assume that "religion" is a place.

Furthermore, the concept of "the birth of Christ in the mind of the believer" is pretty vague.

As far as I can tell, Chili is just on his/er usual line again. The basic idea seems to be that the Gospels are metaphors for what happens when people read the Gospels. That is, when we read the Gospels and replay the birth of Christ in our minds, we are transported in some way to "religion".

Seems like a lot of wasted mystical language for such a silly concept.

Chili

But I am not the bible student here nor am I the enriched doubter who is asking the question. I am just suggesting that Paul separates the Gospel details from religion in the argument from silence and gave my reason for it.

Wads4

Thanks for clarifying; wish I could do it that well.

Chili

OK, but we all know that it was in response to the OP and the flow of the tread in general. The object of the "unless clause" are the crucial Gospel messages proposed in the argument from silence. Here's a quote form the OP:

Gurugeorge agreed that this was a good question:

. . . but not the other way around because we cannot reasonably expect Jesus to quote Paul if Paul came after Jesus.

Now you ask:It's like and airplane ride to a city and when you get there you must take the taxi to get to your final destination. In the plane you will have been told where to go and what to do but must leave the plane to get into the taxi (no matter how comfortable it was). Oh, and don't forget customs and also remember that contra ban does not exist outside airplane rides. The "unspoken prayer" is just opposite to "the sinners prayer," and I take it we all know what that is. Remember here that in my view we leave religion behind when the unspoken prayer is answered while with the sinners prayer religion usually just begins. Thanks.Religion takes us on a mental journey of which the end is Purgatory and Purgatory in its turn takes us on a mental journey to our final destination. But these two are different and that is why I separate them just as Paul does in his argument from silence.Any Baptist will tell you the date and the hour he first believed.The purpose of the Gospels is to show how the metaphysics of salvation are changed from Judaism to Catholicism in effort to defend the New Testament. I mean, if it is new it must be different but must be justifiably nonetheless. In Matthew they (these metaphysics) are presented as Judaism had it. In Mark they are cleansed from Judaism to leave the mechanics stand on their own. To this naked image of Mark a high degree of mysticism is added in Luke to arrive at a working Gospel in John. The idea here is to show how Catholicism is a grafted branch into the trunk of Judaism but has its lineage go past David to Adam to God.

So no, reading the Gospels should not make the event come alive in our mind. I actually think it is not a good idea (but that is not the argument here) and the last thing we want is to have reading the Gospels make us religious. Remember my "plane and taxi ride" distinction here with the plane ride being religion and the Gospels being the taxi ride. Another metaphor here is East and West with religion leading us West to the end of the world while heaven is East of Eden.

Edited to add that according to Anat in the "Adam was the first man" tread, "Mark" means "sign," to say that "sign" wrote the Gospel of Mark instead of Judaism in Matthew. His line "If I were to translate 'Mark wrote the letter' as if it was 'sign wrote the letter' I wouldn't be faithful to the original," is found here.