- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Venial Sin my butt!
Posted on 2/20/24 at 1:26 pm to Cheese Grits
Posted on 2/20/24 at 1:26 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
If you are pre Vatican II RC
Vatican II finished out in 1965. You said you were catechized before then. Are you saying you are 70ish years old? You are a very spry message boarder for that age.
1
Posted on 2/20/24 at 1:30 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Here's what Jerome said in his preface to the book of Judith: Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient.
Jerome said the Jews rejected the subject books. Last I checked you weren’t a Jew. The Catholic Church, which was responsible for assembling the Bible and deciding the canon arbitrarily (or for you it would be “determining the status of divine inspiration”) had a codified canon in 382CE, which is still the canon to this day.
The Protestants, led by Luther, took that entire work, and quit printing with that work (or cordoning off as “apocrypha”) the books that the medieval Jews rejected.
So many Christians like you refuse to accept or are just ignorant of the matter that medieval Jewish Bible - the Tanakh - was modified and was not the Bible the earliest Christians used. You know that much. You know that the earliest Christians quoted from the Greek-language Septuagint, and not so much from the Hebrew-language books. It is so strange that you would reject the Christian scriptures (Septuagint plus books like 1 Enoch - the most important for setting up Christian theology) in favor of altered and redacted copies of the books preserved by the Jews like the Pharisees who killed your Lord and savior.
Protestants removed books of the biblical canon and altogether deleted them from the Bible in many cases. Fact.
If you were a democrat politician, you would try to print a new copy of the constitution without the 2nd amendment. You’d argue you didn’t delete the 2nd amendment, because it was never a legitimate amendment in the first place.
I’m still trying to figure out if you are a liar, or just stupid, or maybe some kind of AI bot.
What happened to Jairus’s daughter? Was she both dead and alive at the same time? Or maybe she died and came back to life multiple times before Jesus could bring her back to life. Left is right. Up is down. Black is white with you. It’s a shame you can’t admit a simple fact that Protestants removed books of the already established biblical canon. Own up to it. Have a reason for it. But admit your guys removed those books.
Posted on 2/20/24 at 2:17 pm to Squirrelmeister
Which books were removed?
Posted on 2/20/24 at 3:38 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
If you were a democrat politician, you would try to print a new copy of the constitution without the 2nd amendment. You’d argue you didn’t delete the 2nd amendment, because it was never a legitimate amendment in the first place.
Yep.
Posted on 2/20/24 at 4:10 pm to bizeagle
quote:
We did everything together, except when it came to really bad or hurtful choices, the a few protestant kids drew a hard line & resisted vs. the Catholic kids who said, "don't worry about it, we just go to confession, they'll make you say some Our Fathers and some Hail Marys."
I had similar experiences, but I was weak and succumbed to the prompting of my evil RC friends. I lacked the refuge of confession and mild penance.
Me and one of them accidentally set a fence on fire at a business on Metairie Road that brought out two engines from the local firehouse. He had penance to do and got a beating from his Dad. I just got a beating from mine.
Posted on 2/20/24 at 7:57 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
What happened to Jairus’s daughter? Was she both dead and alive at the same time?
Since you won’t answer my post, I figured I’d jump in on this one. By the way, that’s quite a clever trick you pulled- appealing to the Catholics to exploit the division between two groups of people that you think are both equally deluded. Reminds me of a certain serpent, in a certain garden.
The enemy of my enemy, huh? Some things never change, I suppose. Anyway, about Jairus’ daughter: A response to Bart Ehrman
The author of this article only tackles a few of Errman’s supposed contradictions, but Jairus’ daughter is the first one.
The two comparable passages are Mark 5:21-24 and Matthew 9:18-20. Ehrman makes much of a key difference here. In Mark’s account, Jairus’ daughter is not dead. But in Matthew’s account, she is.
In Mark’s Gospel, when Jairus speaks to Jesus he says, ‘my daughter has death’ in the original language Koine Greek. This is a bold and vivid image. And we’d be forgiven for thinking the daughter is in fact dead. It is only when some people come from Jairus’ house to tell him, his daughter is now dead that we realise she was in fact living.
While Jesus was still speaking, there came from the ruler’s house some who said, “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?” (Mark 5:35 NIV)
This confirms Ehrman—kind of.
When you read Mark and Matthew carefully you’ll see Mark’s account of the interruption of the bleeding woman and the events around Jairus’ daughter more extensive than Matthew. There are lots more details. Mark’s account is 23 verses long while Matthew’s is only 9. As you read these two accounts, you’ll see that Matthew has compressed both stories, of Jairus’ daughter and the bleeding woman, summarising them in a couple of sentences. He misses lots of details.
Could it be then that Matthew has simply put a summary of the situation on Jairus’ lips, thereby removing the need for the detail of the servants?
There is one more thing to consider. The verb used by Matthew, translated as ‘has died’ is an aorist. It is often translated with past tense for simplicity’s sake but it is much more like the overview of an action or occurrence. This means Jairus could either be saying his daughter has just now died (past tense simplicity) or that her death is an imminent reality, just like Mark. My daughter has death.
Perhaps this does not convince you. Fair enough. But do consider that both accounts agree in these significant details:
Jairus’ coming;
Kneeling at Jesus’ feet;
Jairus asking Jesus to put his hands on his daughter;
The bleeding woman interrupting;
The words to the bleeding woman;
The girl being dead when Jesus arrives;
The words of Jesus—‘The girl is not dead but sleeping;’
The laughter and disbelief of the crowd;
Jesus taking her by the hand.
The key to the event is that the girl is dead before Jesus arrives. Which is really the drama and central point of this event. Jesus raised a dead girl. I think a fair reading of the text shows the overwhelming consistency, even with different styles.
And here I come to one of my caveats. Each of the Gospels is retelling the events of Jesus. And each is representing them as historical events. But I wonder if Bart Ehrman is applying a 21st century standard. He isn’t ‘just reading the text,’ he’s applying modern notions of absolute precision in (verbatim) reporting and using a minor difference in the speech of one character as an excuse to throw the whole event out the window. Does the difference he spotted really mean that Jairus’ daughter really wasn’t at the point of death or in fact dead when Jesus arrived?
I have known you to be a man who admits when he is wrong. I admire that about you. Whether or not this explanation is enough to convince you, in this case, that Bart is intentionally misleading (as surely he is aware of the literary devices and the differences between modern and ancient historiographical standards), it would be intellectually dishonest to deny that this is a logical, rational, and plausible refutation of an apparent contradiction.
This post was edited on 2/21/24 at 7:12 am
Posted on 2/20/24 at 9:34 pm to TigerSprings
quote:
Are you saying you are 70ish years old?
You might could add a decade
Raised by the "Greatest Generation" but the "Boomers" split
I view Baby Boom as 1938 - 1958
Kids born before 46's should be included if they have no Depression or WW II memories if they were born but too young to have vivid memories.
Greatest Generation were forged in their youth by
a) WW I and WW II and other conflicts
b) Great Depression and other lesser financial panics
c) Spanish Flu and other health plagues of lesser news (polio and such)
d) Dust Bowl and other famines
e) Rise of OG gangsters like Capone and Dillinger
That is a lot to absorb in a single generation of youth are so. Some of their progeny were like them but most "Boomers" benefitted from excess from parents who wanted to raise kids far from those stark realities. Looking back, they meant well, but history seems to be proving the opposite effect.
quote:
You are a very spry message boarder for that age.
My mind is fading
I have to piss every 2 hours a night
4 pm dinner is common
Asleep before 8pm on a Friday night is a norm
What can I say, nothing good on TV to watch so this is at least interactive entertainment.
If I know I could not be POTUS at my age, I can assure you neither Biden or Trump can. Problem is "Boomers" like them held on too long and the next generation got it up the backside. Under 35's will get the torch yet and most have no clue about anything.
Posted on 2/20/24 at 10:04 pm to Prodigal Son
Good job, Prodigal Son.
In my experience, whenever I investigated alleged inconsistencies in the gospels, they all turn out to be in alignment. I actually would expect that individuals would not write the gospels exactly the same way, proving evidence that they are not copies but different people with different styles, different viewing angles, and different reactions to what they see and hear.
In my experience, whenever I investigated alleged inconsistencies in the gospels, they all turn out to be in alignment. I actually would expect that individuals would not write the gospels exactly the same way, proving evidence that they are not copies but different people with different styles, different viewing angles, and different reactions to what they see and hear.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 5:50 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
Reminds me of a certain serpent, in a certain garden. The enemy of my enemy, huh? Some things never change, I suppose. Anyway, about Jairus’ daughter:
A response to Bart Ehrman
Man, you Christians sure are quick to call others satan simply because they have a different opinion than you. 
Posted on 2/21/24 at 5:53 am to Cheese Grits
It’s about Jesus. Period. Direct
Posted on 2/21/24 at 6:45 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Man, you Christians sure are quick to call others satan simply because they have a different opinion than you.
It was a joke. You can let go of your pearls now.
This post was edited on 2/21/24 at 7:10 am
Posted on 2/21/24 at 6:52 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
You can let go of your pearls now.
I mean, I even posted a laughing emoji. What makes you think I was clutching my pearls?
Posted on 2/21/24 at 7:04 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Protestants removed books of the biblical canon and altogether deleted them from the Bible in many cases. Fact.
“One time I read an article on the internet about the Bible.”
Dumbass
Posted on 2/21/24 at 7:12 am to Mo Jeaux
I fixed it. Thanks for the help
Posted on 2/21/24 at 7:58 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
that’s quite a clever trick you pulled- appealing to the Catholics to exploit the division between two groups of people that you think are both equally deluded.
Im not attempting to appeal to anyone. That the Catholics admit reality and Foo can’t admit the facts of his reality in this particular circumstance is coincidental.
quote:
The two comparable passages are Mark 5:21-24 and Matthew 9:18-20. Ehrman makes much of a key difference here. In Mark’s account, Jairus’ daughter is not dead. But in Matthew’s account, she is.
:I agree with this:
quote:
In Mark’s Gospel, when Jairus speaks to Jesus he says, ‘my daughter has death’ in the original language Koine Greek.
PS, this is false. I understand you want that explanation to be true, but when backing up a statement like that, I recommend you first check the Greek. In Mark, he doesn’t use the word for “death” at all. The word used is most often rendered as “last” throughout the English bibles. What Mark is most literally saying is “The little-daughter of me has (her) last”. The “little-daughter” word is a diminutive form of daughter, kind of like in Spanish using niña vs niñita, or referring to someone named Lupe as Lupita. Jairus’ little daughter has her last (days? Hours? Minutes?). That’s why most translations translate it as “my daughter is at the point of death”. She’s almost dead, at her last hours apparently (in context of the story) but not dead yet.
quote:
Matthew has compressed both stories, of Jairus’ daughter and the bleeding woman, summarising them in a couple of sentences. He misses lots of details.
You may not believe this but it’s worth stating that whoever wrote “Matthew” used “Mark” as a source. “Matthew” is deliberately copying “Mark” sometimes word for word but they consciously chooses to change some things about some of the stories.
quote:
The verb used by Matthew, translated as ‘has died’ is an aorist. It is often translated with past tense for simplicity’s sake but it is much more like the overview of an action or occurrence.
Let me give you the literally Greek transliteration into English: “the daughter of me just-now has died”.
quote:
Perhaps this does not convince you. Fair enough. But do consider that both accounts agree in these significant details:
I’m not arguing in ways they match, but where they do not match.
quote:
Does the difference he spotted really mean that Jairus’ daughter really wasn’t at the point of death or in fact dead when Jesus arrived?
Ehrman is the top ranked English speaking Ancient Greek textual critic in the world, so I would take his word for it. But we don’t have to because the Greek is available to us to check it out!
quote:
it would be intellectually dishonest to deny that this is a logical, rational, and plausible refutation of an apparent contradiction.
Those are two tellings of the same story. They literally state different things, and not that it matters but the difference is intentional. In one, she isn’t dead yet, in the other, she’s already dead. It’s a contradiction. You might rationalize it like you do saying most of the rest of the story matches, or you might have a reason for the contradiction, but it’s still a contradiction. Those aren’t simply differences in points of view. She’s either alive and needs to be cured, or she’s already dead. Since both of those things can’t be true - at most only one could be true (my belief is that they are both untrue) logically. Therefore, at least one of those tales cannot be historically accurate.
If none of that matters to you, then fine! I get it - people want to believe despite the unscientific claims and despite the ahistorical accuracy and despite the contradictions. But a contradiction is still a contradiction.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 10:13 am to TNoon
quote:
It should be about Jesus. Period. Direct
FIFY
Mix politics, religion, money, and power and it never is.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 10:17 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
You may not believe this but it’s worth stating that whoever wrote “Matthew” used “Mark” as a source. “Matthew” is deliberately copying “Mark” sometimes word for word but they consciously chooses to change some things about some of the stories.
Sure. Except that’s unlikely in an oral society.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 12:04 pm to the808bass
quote:
Sure. Except that’s unlikely in an oral society.
What are you saying? Are you saying Matthew didn’t copy Mark or use Mark as a source? If so, you’ve never read the gospels “horizontally” meaning read the same story side by side in the gospels to see if there are differences.
Very good examples of Matthew copying Mark
quote:
oral society
If you say Jesus was from Nazareth in Galilee (I don’t believe that but that’s the gospel message) and that he had disciples who were Galilean fisherman, you’d have to conclude that his disciples would have been illiterate and would have spoken Aramaic. Hell, ACTS states specifically that they were illiterate. So if you allege these stories of Jesus were passed down orally for 50 to 100 years and then written down in Greek, then you’d also have to ignore that the gospels copied word for word from each other. There’s no logical reasonable way two people could write the story from their own vantage point being word for word, sentence for sentence duplicates of each other in many places if copying didn’t occur.
Imagine two historians writing today a book on WW2 Nazi Germany, each having 20 specific stories, and 17 of the 20 are the same story and in 15 of those 17 there are word for word duplications of sentences. Wouldn’t you allege plagiarism?
Posted on 2/21/24 at 5:11 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Man, you Christians sure are quick to call others satan simply because they have a different opinion than you. It was a joke. You can let go of your pearls now.
PS, how many times do we have to go over this? The snake didn’t deceive Adam and Eve. The snake told them the truth. Adonai lied. And I’m not saying lying or the truth was good or bad, but Genesis 2-3 is clear that Yahweh lied and the serpent was truthful (perhaps to the detriment of the humans and the snake?).
I didn’t think you were calling me Satan because the snake isn’t Satan. The thought had not crossed my mind.
I do kind of get a kick out of Foo calling me the spawn of Satan!
Posted on 2/21/24 at 5:13 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
If you say Jesus was from Nazareth in Galilee (I don’t believe that but that’s the gospel message) and that he had disciples who were Galilean fisherman, you’d have to conclude that his disciples would have been illiterate and would have spoken Aramaic.
Are you alleging that they weren’t part of an oral society?
Or do you just not know anything that you’re talking about?
That’s a rhetorical question.
Page 8 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News