Re: virus: The Kingdom...

Eric Boyd (6ceb3@qlink.queensu.ca)
Wed, 12 May 1999 15:57:31 -0400

Hi,

Snow Leopard <juliet784@hotmail.com> writes: <<
In addition to "the Kingdom of God is at hand," key passages include: "Not of this world"
"Of my Father, in Heaven."
>>

Yes. Another key passage, however, and which seems contradictory, is Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (KJV -- the other versions I have all agree on the translation). My key question is: what did *Jesus* mean by "heaven" or "the Kingdom of God"? Like I said -- I've never been able to find a consistent meaning, and I suspect that this is due to later editors putting words into the mouth of Jesus -- words Jesus never said.

<<
Last time I checked the web page, there were multiple mailing lists.
>>

Actually, there are different ways of recieving the same mailing list -- virus, or virus-digest. There is also a list virus-game with no traffic at all. (for Virians who remember that: I am working on a new "empire" like virus game; it's in trial right now -- if it's good, I'll post the rules and any needed props on my web-page. Each player begins with one True Believer!).

<<
Someone said that only one gospel said something about a gaurd and a seal? May I use logic a moment? Let's say I'm writing a gospel. I've spent three years with this guy, who I think is great, heck, He's God! (In the eyes of the writers)
>>

Note: Jesus is only God in the eyes of the writer of the Gospel of John (not for the writers of the synoptic gospels Matt/Mark/Luke). People debate whether or not Paul viewed Jesus as God.

<<
Now, He dies. I'm depressed, confused, scared. He rises from the dead, I'm euphoric, confused and perhaps not as aware of events as usual. All I care about is: HE'S ALIVE! Maybe I'm not going to notice a few details about some guy in a Roman uniform.
>>

If it's integral to your case that he rose from the dead, sure you're going to care about it. The argument from silence is very valid when the topic on which the author is silent is important and should have been known by the writer.

<<
Again, I wasn't there, neither are you, but a shadow of a doubt isn't going to obscure something that, if false, too many people would've objected to at the time.
>>

You've got to remember, the book of Matthew wasn't written until AD 70 or thereabouts -- fully 37 years after the event. Matthew (the name we have given to the anomous writer) himself wasn't there. Besides, Matthew's Gospel has a number of other confirmed instances of lying -- not the least of which is his earthquake and darkness stories. In short, Matthew made a few "pious exaggerations" to help his cause along -- the very same type of lies that St. Augustine later wrote two entire books about in an attempt to make them stop. (Early Christians are not known for their honesty... heck, even current Christians are not known for their honesty... witness the Creation "Scientists")

ERiC