Originally Posted by 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: [/i]

Gurugeorge agreed that this was a good question: [/i]

. . . 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.