- 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 2/21/24 at 6:41 pm to the808bass
Posted on 2/21/24 at 6:41 pm to the808bass
quote:
Are you alleging that they weren’t part of an oral society?
There may have been a component of oral tradition, but at some point after a version of Mark was composed, Matthew composed his own, while using Mark as a source, perhaps adding additional stories from oral traditions, and maybe fabricating new stories from his imagination to shape the theology of his audience.
You either didn’t read or didn’t understand the subject matter in the link I sent you. If you want to learn, you can start by reading or re-reading the material in the link which explains one component (editorial fatigue) of how we know Matthew copied Mark.
quote:
Or do you just not know anything that you’re talking about? That’s a rhetorical question.
Please.
I’ve forgotten more than you know about the Bible and ancient near eastern history. I’m lumping you in with dullards like Liberator and Roger unless you show a spark of cognitive ability and attempt persuasive arguments with evidence, logic, and reason.
The least you can do is study some mental gymnastics before replying to me again.
0
Posted on 2/21/24 at 7:03 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
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.
Ok buddy. If you say so. Purely coincidence.
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.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that this is true. It very well may be. I wasn’t there. (Neither was Bart
) Furthermore, let’s grant the theory that Mark used the non-extant ( and purely theoretical) “Q” source (in addition to eyewitness testimony), and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q (in addition to eyewitness testimony). How does that disprove Holy Spirit inspiration? It doesn’t. At all. The material in each of the accounts that could have come from Q would have been inspired, and also earlier (perhaps even being compiled during Jesus’ ministry), and therefore extremely accurate- though not exhaustive, and perhaps only from a single point of view (thereby necessitating the synoptic Gospels). Furthermore, it would easily explain not only the similarities between the three, but also the differences. If Matthew used Mark, then clearly he was aware that Mark’s gospel was already in circulation, and would be less concerned with repeating every single detail that Mark had already published. Matthew’s Gospel is 28 chapters. Mark’s is 16. Perhaps Matthew was a bit wordy, and in an effort to condense, he omitted a few details, and combined a few more; so that he could expound upon aspects of the Gospel that were more important to him and his audience. Same with Luke. Different author, different audience. All of which serves its intended purpose, and none of which disproves that the scriptures are the inspired Word of God. quote:
(Mine) 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
Your response:
quote:
Let me give you the literally Greek transliteration into English: “the daughter of me just-now has died”.
WikiWiki-peeediahh
In the grammar of Ancient Greek, an aorist (pronounced /'e?.?r?st/ or /'??r?st/) (from the Ancient Greek ????st?? aóristos - ‘undefined’) is a type of verb that carries certain information about a grammatical feature called aspect. For example, an English speaker might say either "The tree died" or "The tree was dying," which communicate similar things about the tree but differ in aspect. In ancient Greek, these would be stated, respectively, in the aorist and imperfect. The aorist describes an event as a complete action rather than one that was ongoing, unfolding, repeated, or habitual.
So, we see that the type of verb (aorist) that Matthew used- does indeed work exactly in the manner that the author of the article (not Bart Err-man) describes. And, therefore does not in fact contradict Mark’s account.
quote:
I’m not arguing in ways they match, but where they do not match.
AKA: “Looking for loopholes.”
quote:
Ehrman is the top ranked English speaking Ancient Greek textual critic in the world,
Who is also an apostate, who has made his living by selling popular level books to the unlearned, and whose pride will not allow him to return to his senses. He’s a grifter of the lowest order. He takes your money, and costs you your soul. Unfortunately, his followers will not be able to blame him for their demise (insert Hosea 4:6). He is the hero of the modern atheist. But he is a straw man. Did you know, that all of his supposed contradictions are not the reason for his apostasy? He relinquished his eternal soul for his lack of understanding the problem of evil. A problem that is easily resolved by understanding one’s place in the pecking order between God and man; by understanding the importance of that which is temporal, versus that which is eternal- that which is resolved by faith alone. Knowledge and wisdom are to be desired; but without the faith of a child- they are meaningless.
quote:
so I would take his word for it.
Of course you do. You share the same plight. You’re both making the same wager.
quote:
Those are two tellings of the same story. They literally state different things, and not that it matters but the difference is intentional.
I think I have shown that this is not the case. You may not agree, but I would only question your motives- not your logic. You are well within the acceptable range of your logical faculties to come to the conclusions that you have. My contention is twofold: that, as a believer, so am I; and that this struggle is by design. It is only desire that separates our positions.
quote:
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.
I hope you understand and believe that I am not here to try to score cheap points on an internet talk forum. I engage you because I truly believe that Christianity is true; and that you would be a very powerful addition to the Kingdom of God. I sincerely hope and pray for your immediate conversion.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 8:20 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Furthermore, let’s grant the theory that Mark used the non-extant ( and purely theoretical) “Q” source (in addition to eyewitness testimony), and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q (in addition to eyewitness testimony). How does that disprove Holy Spirit inspiration? It doesn’t.
I agree with you! The use of sources and plagiarism doesn’t disprove Holy Spirit inspiration. The irreconcilable contradictions do. That is, if you believe the inspiration means historically accurate, consistent, and correct. I guess you could make the argument the Holy Spirit inspired the contradictions
just to test people’s faith. quote:
If Matthew used Mark, then clearly he was aware that Mark’s gospel was already in circulation, and would be less concerned with repeating every single detail that Mark had already published.
His intention was to re-write and reform it into something that better fit his beliefs. He possibly meant to replace Mark with Matthew. With your logic though, why would he even copy any of Mark if he knew the material was already in circulation? Personally I believed he shortened some of the stories in many cases just to cut down on words to save on papyrus or parchment. Even something like the gospel of Matthew would cost about $10k in today’s dollars. Many goats had to die each time a book was copied.
quote:
The aorist describes an event as a complete action rather than one that was ongoing, unfolding, repeated, or habitual.
The daughter of me just-now has died. Seems like your argument is that in Matthew, the daughter is already dead and has completed the action of dying (not ongoing). In Mark, the daughter has her last hours, on the bring of death, and was in need of healing so she was still alive. Maybe I’m missing something but you appear to be agreeing with me and acknowledging the reality of the irreconcilable contradiction.
quote:
and whose pride will not allow him to return to his senses.
I don’t think it is pride. Imagine what you believe about Zeus or Ahura Mazda or Muhammad. Fake gods - myths- and fake prophets, right? Imagine your level of disbelief in those things to understand what is atheists believe about your god.
quote:
He is the hero of the modern atheist
He can’t admit Jesus is a mythical character. I wouldn’t call him my hero. Part of his problem I believe is that he has some sort of pledge with financial and possible legal penalties if he ever says or writes Jesus didn’t exist.
quote:
Did you know, that all of his supposed contradictions are not the reason for his apostasy? He relinquished his eternal soul for his lack of understanding the problem of evil.
I am well aware of his claim and I do not believe him for 1 second. I think his claim is bullshite.
I think Ehrman, through his textual criticism, realized that none of it could be historically accurate. Then if he learned anything at all about the hard sciences and nature, that would have been the final straw to reject the Bible outright.
You know what Bart also says? Anyone can justify anything (with enough mental gymnastics).
quote:
I hope you understand and believe that I am not here to try to score cheap points on an internet talk forum. I engage you because I truly believe that Christianity is true
Of course not. This is an anonymous forum so what would cheap points even mean? No value in that. I appreciate you engaging me because I enjoy creating persuasive arguments and I like sharing information, and every now and then you teach me something new.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 10:02 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
oral society
Posted on 2/22/24 at 10:02 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
plagiarism
Again, you’re applying 21st century standards to ancient near east writing. That’s a no no.
The authors’ intention was not deception. They were not using the material in order to get a job as the president of Harvard. quote:
doesn’t disprove Holy Spirit inspiration. The irreconcilable contradictions do.
Again- there is no contradiction here. Matthew is simply condensing irrelevant details. That is apparent from reading both passages “horizontally,” as you learned from Err-man. Matthew used the aorist (has died) to accomplish this task. This was perfectly acceptable in his time, and his intended audience would have understood it as such.
quote:
The daughter of me just-now has died. Seems like your argument is that in Matthew, the daughter is already dead and has completed the action of dying (not ongoing).
Clearly, she was in fact dead when Jairus approached Jesus. This can be rightly assumed by the fact that Jairus’ servant appears (in Mark’s account) to give the news while Jairus is with Jesus. She was “at her last” when Jairus left her, and she breathed her last shortly thereafter- prompting the servant to find Jairus and give the bad news.
quote:
Maybe I’m missing something but you appear to be agreeing with me and acknowledging the reality of the irreconcilable contradiction.
You are. And I’m genuinely confounded as to how you’re misunderstanding the definition and use of the aorist. From the example on Wiki- whereas an English speaker/writer would have to use “is dying” or “has died”… in order to convey aspect, the Greek speaker/writer would have understood “has died” as a complete action of is dying and has died. I know this is counterintuitive to our modern understanding of language, but we are not to impose our modern standards on ancient writings. We are to understand them in the context and application of their methods, and use them to ascertain the intended purpose of their literary device.
quote:Not his beliefs, but his audience. Matthew was addressing Jewish audience.
His intention was to re-write and reform it into something that better fit his beliefs.
quote:
He possibly meant to replace Mark with Matthew.
I doubt that. I think his intention was to complement Mark’s Gospel.
quote:
With your logic though, why would he even copy any of Mark if he knew the material was already in circulation?
Because it was inspired and accurate, and contained much information that he needed to convey to his audience.
quote:
Personally I believed he shortened some of the stories in many cases just to cut down on words to save on papyrus or parchment.
I agree. He may have had all the details in his account, originally. And, upon completion, realizing the great length of his account, decided to condense it by removing several details that he knew had already been covered, because he knew that his account would be supplemental to Mark’s.
quote:
Imagine what you believe about Zeus or Ahura Mazda or Muhammad. Fake gods - myths- and fake prophets, right? Imagine your level of disbelief in those things to understand what is atheists believe about your god.
I understand. But where we differ, is that I understand those to be a counterfeit of something real. The evidence for Christianity, though not irrefutable (by design), is far more convincing than any other religion’s attempts to define God and describe reality.
quote:
He can’t admit Jesus is a mythical character. I wouldn’t call him my hero. Part of his problem I believe is that he has some sort of pledge with financial and possible legal penalties if he ever says or writes Jesus didn’t exist.
From watching his debates and interviews, it seems clear to me that he 100% is convinced of the existence of the historical Jesus. Have you ever seen
his debate with Robert Price ?
quote:
I am well aware of his claim and I do not believe him for 1 second. I think his claim is bullshite.
Interesting that you take him at his word when it suits your agenda, but deny his sincerity and/or motives when it does not. He seems very sincere in this short video.
quote:
I appreciate you engaging me because I enjoy creating persuasive arguments and I like sharing information, and every now and then you teach me something new.
Likewise, my friend.
Here’s a video I would like you to watch and critique:
Debunking Bart Ehrman
If you have time, a YouTube search of “refuting Bart Ehrman” will turn up some interesting videos.
I would highly recommend watching James White vs BART Ehrman
and
James White exposes Bart Ehrman
This one has some interesting backstory to Bart’s time at Moody Theological Seminary. Apparently, he was not the best and brightest, and showed little to no interest in theology. This would’ve been before his deconversion.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 12:42 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Read the rest of the preface to the book that I provided. Jerome wasn't going to include it but only did so at the request (command, even, as he pointed out) of the Pope. Jerome didn't agree that all of the apocryphal books were authoritative. You're focusing on the wrong point of the quote. I bolded the word "apocrypha" as a proof that it wasn't Martin Luther that "coined" the term, as Jerome used it 1000 years before Luther did.
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.
quote:That wasn't a common practice until the 1800s, if I recall correctly. Luther included the apocrypha in his translation of the Bible into German. He could have removed them completely since he didn't believe them to be inspired, but he, like many throughout church history, believed them to be beneficial to the church even if they aren't authoritative for defining doctrine (the difference between canonical texts and ecclesiastical texts). Likewise, the King James Bible, which was printed nearly 100 years after Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door, included the apocrypha, though maintained that they were not inspired, authoritative Scripture. In fact, the apocrypha was included in printings of the KJV all the way up until the late 1800's. The Geneva Bible, which was also a popular English translation during the Reformation (it was also the English Bible brought to America), also included the apocrypha, but again, due to its helpfulness, not due to its authority.
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 no, your assertion that Protestants "led by Luther" quit printing it is not accurate as you described it. Quite the opposite. Acknowledging that those books are not authoritative Scripture but including it within the covers of the Bible is not deleting it. Since those books were not considered authoritative Scripture, then not printing them is not removing Scripture. It's removing non-Scripture from bindings of Scripture.
quote:Clearly you are entirely ignorant of the formation and transmission of the Bible. I'm not going to give you a history lesson on it.
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.
I'll just say that the Reformed position is that the original autographs in the languages they were originally written in are inspired, while translations and copies are not considered inspired. Textual criticism then applies principles to the manuscripts we have to determine the best ones to use for our modern translations.
Also, Enoch hasn't been accepted as inspired Scripture by the Jews or the early Christian church, and neither Catholics nor Protestants accept it as canonical. I know you've got a fondness for the book, but it simply isn't considered inspired.
quote:Removed from the Catholic canon, yes. The reason why this is even a point of contention is because Protestants and Catholics disagree on whether the books of the apocrypha are actually inspired Scripture. It's why I'm making such a stink about the particular language about this. We don't view the exclusion of the apocrypha as exclusion of Scripture, because we reject it as Scripture to begin with.
Protestants removed books of the biblical canon and altogether deleted them from the Bible in many cases. Fact.
quote:Not quite, but if you don't know why this isn't a fair comparison based on what I've said so far, more words aren't going to help you.
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.
quote:Or none of the above. I'd go with "none of the above".
I’m still trying to figure out if you are a liar, or just stupid, or maybe some kind of AI bot.
quote:I'd be happy to actually engage with alleged contradictions but again, you're not interested in hearing about how they aren't contradictions but can be adequately resolved. You just want to destroy the faith of Christians, so since you act in bad faith (even if I were able to show exactly how this particular issue can be reconciled, you would just pull out another alleged contradiction for me or others to respond to), I'm not going to engage in that. I'm limiting my response to a singular issue at this time to keep things on track.
What happened to Jairus’s daughter?
Posted on 2/22/24 at 12:45 pm to Champagne
quote:Instead of sniping me from afar by agreeing with a militant atheist who is hellbent on destroying the faith of Christians, perhaps you should engage with me directly.
Champagne
I'm still waiting for your response as to if the Catholic church recognizes all books included in the Septuagint as authoritative Scripture, or if Rome leaves any of those writings out of the canon.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 6:51 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I bolded the word "apocrypha" as a proof that it wasn't Martin Luther that "coined" the term, as Jerome used it 1000 years before Luther did.
Dude, the word is an Ancient Greek word. Martin Luther defined its modern usage in Protestant theology. The “apocrypha” in the Lutheran church is identical or near identical (different language at least) to the Anglican Church and the rest. Luther defined the term. Others used that word before Luther but it didn’t mean what it means today before Luther defined it. Jerome was mainly talking about the ending of Daniel, not throwing out Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, Song of Songs, etc. as non inspired. That was my thought, and that’s also what I got out of the link you presented.
quote:quote:That wasn't a common practice until the 1800s, if I recall correctly.
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.
Ok, but it was still done for the last 200 years. I’m not arguing when the books were deleted, but that the Protestants deleted them.
quote:
So no, your assertion that Protestants "led by Luther" quit printing it is not accurate as you described it. Quite the opposite.
You yourself admit Luther started the reformation. Why are you then in denial that Luther was the catalyst for removing Catholic canon, used in the church for at least 1200 years before Luther, from the Bible?
quote:
Acknowledging that those books are not authoritative Scripture but including it within the covers of the Bible is not deleting it. Since those books were not considered authoritative Scripture, then not printing them is not removing Scripture. It's removing non-Scripture from bindings of Scripture.
Re-read your own post. You are saying that declassifying books from the canon, and then deleting the books from the Bible, is not deleting books from the Bible.
quote:
Clearly you are entirely ignorant of the formation and transmission of the Bible. I'm not going to give you a history lesson on it.
It is you who are ignorant as you ignore history and reality. Whatever lesson you’d give would likely be false subject matter.
quote:
Also, Enoch hasn't been accepted as inspired Scripture by the Jews or the early Christian church, and neither Catholics nor Protestants accept it as canonical. I know you've got a fondness for the book, but it simply isn't considered inspired.
The Dead Sea Scrolls community kept more copies of Enoch than any other book. They were Jews (Essenes), and they considered it scripture. Understanding Enoch is to understand the setting that allowed beliefs in later Christian theology. The Pharisees and Sadducees as not using Enoch in their theology, were not set up theologically to accept Jesus, and therefore rejected the new part of the religion. I think you know all that and are just being deceitful, but prove me wrong and admit that you understand that the DSS community kept Enoch as scripture. All through the first couple centuries of Christianity, Enoch was scripture. It was the Catholic Church that later rejected it in the third century. It’s why the Ethiopic church has Enoch in their Old Testament… the Romans failed to scrub Enoch from as far away as Ethiopia.
ETA: 1 Enoch is referenced more than any other book by New Testament authors. Jude quotes it word for word. Fragments have been found in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Syriac plus the complete version in Ethiopic. It was spread far and wide and used all over by many people as scripture before being scrubbed by the Romans.
quote:quote:Not quite, but if you don't know why this isn't a fair comparison based on what I've said so far, more words aren't going to help you.
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 think it is maybe the most perfect comparison. You hate the truth!
quote:
What happened to Jairus’s daughter?I'd be happy to actually engage with alleged contradictions but again, you're not interested in hearing about how they aren't contradictions but can be adequately resolved.
You’re scared, and you don’t even have an answer derived from your delusions yet.
This post was edited on 2/23/24 at 7:12 am
Posted on 2/23/24 at 8:11 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
Again, you’re applying 21st century standards to ancient near east writing. That’s a no no.
Why is it a no no? Call it what you want - I prefer plagiarism - but Matthew used Mark as a source and in many cases copied Mark word for word, sentence for sentence, story for story.
quote:
Clearly, she was in fact dead when Jairus approached Jesus. This can be rightly assumed by the fact that Jairus’ servant appears (in Mark’s account) to give the news while Jairus is with Jesus
I think my confusion was that you are arguing in both accounts the girl is already dead. I thought you were arguing in both accounts the girl was still alive. Clearly, in Mark, the daughter is not dead but still alive when Jairus approaches Jesus. We know this from the context as well because in Jairus’ approach to Jesus, Jairus says his daughter is having her last (hours) and is in need of healing (not resurrection). Then later his peeps told him - hey your daughter is now dead, why bother Jesus any longer? Matthew on the other hand like you described is very clear the girl is already dead when Jairus approaches Jesus. It is strange you can make yourself believe that those two stories are the same without contradiction. In one the daughter is alive but in the other she’s dead. We probably just need to agree to disagree and move on.
quote:quote:Not his beliefs, but his audience. Matthew was addressing Jewish audience.
His intention was to re-write and reform it into something that better fit his beliefs.
Matthew did a lot to reject and counteract Paul’s gospel. Paul says the Mosaic Law is a curse, and that Jesus came to rid us of the law, and since salvation only comes through belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection, then salvation logically cannot come from following the Law. Matthew says nuh uh, Jesus didn’t come to abolish the law but fulfill it, and that anyone who doesn’t follow the Law will be least in the kingdom of God.
quote:
He possibly meant to replace Mark with Matthew. I doubt that. I think his intention was to complement Mark’s Gospel.
Doubt it all you want. When a new revision is released of a document, the older version normally becomes obsolete and no longer accurate, correct, or used anymore. And yes, Matthew is a revised copy of Mark. Matthew is not a “separate eyewitness account”.
quote:
I understand. But where we differ, is that I understand those to be a counterfeit of something real. The evidence for Christianity, though not irrefutable (by design), is far more convincing than any other religion’s attempts to define God and describe reality.
I don’t think you do understand. It’s all counterfeit and it’s all easily refutable. None are convincing, because none are based on reality. God could sure save us the trouble though and reveal himself to everyone in a manner that would positively convey his realness, but no, he can’t, because he doesn’t exist. Don’t confuse that with “there is absolutely no god or supreme power” but rather I mean the specific god of your Bible does not exist or does not exist in the manner described therein.
quote:
From watching his debates and interviews, it seems clear to me that he 100% is convinced of the existence of the historical Jesus. Have you ever seen his debate with Robert Price ?
Yes his debate arguments are painful. He understands that Paul never met Jesus nor heard about his gospel message from any man (that would include Peter and James). He understands the gospels are not historically accurate and can see how they copied one another. He admits Josephus’ writings of “Jesus the messiah” are fabricated by Christians in the 4th century. Bart doesn’t lay out any bit of evidence of Jesus’ existence, but rather is like “Come on, man! Of course the guy really existed!” That’s his entire argument, that since there’s a bunch of stories about him then he must’ve been real. He’s too smart for that. Bart knows about Enoch and the Ascension of Isaiah and Paul’s gospel of a pre-existent Jesus - which Bart does not believe in - yet he still argues for Jesus the human on earth. I think per his university contract he has to argue for Jesus’ existence even if he knows otherwise.
quote:
Interesting that you take him at his word when it suits your agenda, but deny his sincerity and/or motives when it does not.
Come on, man. You know it is possible to believe something someone tells you, and to not believe another story of that same person. Bart’s motives of not understanding suffering could be convincing if he wasn’t a scholarly textual critic of the Bible.
I have to actually go to work today but I will try to watch some of the videos you linked and do an update.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 8:35 am to Cheese Grits
Catholicism was started by fish merchants.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 8:46 am to FooManChoo
Foo, this matter is settled. Historical facts are incontrovertible. You are entitled to your opinion, but, you are not entitled to your own facts.
The fact is that the Canon of the Holy Bible was settled in the 4th Century. All of Christendom worshiped from Bibles containing that Canon. Were there discussions regarding whether that Canon was correct? Yes. A few Roman Catholic Biblical scholars did discuss this issue, even after the Canon was settled in the 4th Century AD. But the question, we know, was settled because all of the Bibles used by Christendom contained those OT books that the Protestants threw out Twelve Centuries later.
Then, over TWELVE CENTURIES LATER, a few dudes decided that the Medieval Jewish Bible was the REAL Bible, when it came to the Old Testament. So at that point in history, these dudes ripped those books out of the Old Testament and declared "THIS is the real Bible! The Bible that you have known for more than 1,200 years is a False Bible. God fooled us for more than 1,200 with regard to the contents of the Real Bible."
The reason why I don't fully engage with you around here is because IMHO, you have evil intent. You are here to wage war against the Roman Catholic Faith and against Catholics. I am not here to wage war. I am here to offer truthful counterpoints to Anti Catholic Haters like you.
Folks, the initial charge around here was "Catholics ADDED books to the Bible." The Truth is that back in 382 AD, the Church formally adopted the Canon of Holy Scripture at this committee meeting linked below. This Canon of 382 AD includes all of the Old Testament books that the Protestants later deleted from the Holy Bible.
The links supporting this have already been posted in this thread.
The fact is that the Canon of the Holy Bible was settled in the 4th Century. All of Christendom worshiped from Bibles containing that Canon. Were there discussions regarding whether that Canon was correct? Yes. A few Roman Catholic Biblical scholars did discuss this issue, even after the Canon was settled in the 4th Century AD. But the question, we know, was settled because all of the Bibles used by Christendom contained those OT books that the Protestants threw out Twelve Centuries later.
Then, over TWELVE CENTURIES LATER, a few dudes decided that the Medieval Jewish Bible was the REAL Bible, when it came to the Old Testament. So at that point in history, these dudes ripped those books out of the Old Testament and declared "THIS is the real Bible! The Bible that you have known for more than 1,200 years is a False Bible. God fooled us for more than 1,200 with regard to the contents of the Real Bible."
The reason why I don't fully engage with you around here is because IMHO, you have evil intent. You are here to wage war against the Roman Catholic Faith and against Catholics. I am not here to wage war. I am here to offer truthful counterpoints to Anti Catholic Haters like you.
Folks, the initial charge around here was "Catholics ADDED books to the Bible." The Truth is that back in 382 AD, the Church formally adopted the Canon of Holy Scripture at this committee meeting linked below. This Canon of 382 AD includes all of the Old Testament books that the Protestants later deleted from the Holy Bible.
The links supporting this have already been posted in this thread.
This post was edited on 2/23/24 at 9:06 am
Posted on 2/23/24 at 8:56 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
but Matthew used Mark as a source and in many cases copied Mark word for word, sentence for sentence, story for story.
This is true. There are even scholars who say that Mark copied Matthew, instead of the other way around. The consensus that the Apostle Matthew is the man who wrote the Gospel of Matthew is greatly challenged today. It may be so, but, as you point out, historical evidence exists that indicates otherwise.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 10:32 am to Champagne
quote:
There are even scholars who say that Mark copied Matthew, instead of the other way around. The consensus that the Apostle Matthew is the man who wrote the Gospel of Matthew is greatly challenged today.
Champagne,
You bring up an interesting point. There isn’t exact consensus on who copied who and when.
Remember that these gospels are anonymous. There is no claim within the gospels as to who wrote them. They are all written in the third person - in a narrative story format. It was the church in the late 2nd century that assigned names to the gospels so that in common speech, they’d know which gospel was being discussed. They could’ve simply called them 1, 2, 3, and 4. They instead chose to call them by a name.
Among scholars there is near universal acceptance that based on the current versions of the 4 canonical gospels, that Matthew copied Mark, Luke copied Mark and either copied Matthew or used the same other source that Matthew used, and that John copied them all but re-wrote sentences and rearranged the order of the stories. Where there is great disagreement is on which one came first.
Let me explain. You see, there were many hundreds of different versions of those 4 gospels. We have the manuscripts even. Many of those hundreds of differences are very slight. Some are major. For instance, there’s the original ending of Mark (the two women run away in fear and tell no one), but there’s about 4 other major versions of endings that append to the original… like shite about drinking poison and handling snakes. This wasn’t simply a matter of versions being created, with the old version staying stagnant. No, after Matthew was created using Mark, Mark continued to be expanded later… using material from Matthew and Luke. We (including scholars) don’t really know if the versions we have that we consider more “original” are actually the originals.
What I personally believe if you are interested is that a heretic named Markion of Sinope created the first Bible (actually that is undisputed among scholars). Markion published his first Christian Bible using a very early version of Luke. Irenaeus later claimed (like 50 years later after Markion’s death) that Markion stripped down Luke, because the version Irenaeus had was a more expanded more current version of Luke. I believe and many scholars believe that Markion didn’t strip down Luke, but used an early non-expanded version of Luke.
Trying to simplify this a lot would be like saying Luke (Markion version) led to the creation of Mark. Matthew copied Mark. Luke was amended to include material from Mark and Matthew. Mark was then amended to include ending material from Matthew and Luke, while retaining the earlier version of Mark in circulation. Then John used them all as a source.
quote:
Apostle Matthew is the man who wrote the Gospel of Matthew is greatly challenged today
I can only really comment on Catholic beliefs and assertions here… after originally just assigning names to the gospels, later on the church has official proclaimed that for example Matthew really was written by the apostle Matthew, that it was the first gospel, and that it was written in Aramaic originally. They couldn’t be more wrong. They are ignoring their own history of simply assigning a name to the gospel firstly. Second, it was definitely composed in Greek, not Aramaic, and there are many word for word, sentence for sentence copies of Mark (which was written in Greek).
One example I can think of is how Mark says in Greek something like this - and Jesus’ last words before his death were Eli Eli Lama Sabachtani, which means my God my God why have you forsaken me?. Throughout Mark, he includes Aramaic sayings and words and then in Greek describes what the Aramaic means to his Greek readers. Matthew simply copies the whole thing straight out of Mark. If Matthew would have been originally in Aramaic, there would have been no need to state to the reader what Eli Eli Lama Sabacthani meant.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 1:57 pm to Squirrelmeister
Bible History is very complicated indeed. We know that for sure. My own input regarding whether Matthew copied Mark OR the other way around, is from a written discussion of the issue included in my Bible before the Book of Matthew.
There's such a discussion before every book, in my Bible. Letter to the Hebrews' discussion freely admits that we have no idea who wrote that book of the Bible.
There's such a discussion before every book, in my Bible. Letter to the Hebrews' discussion freely admits that we have no idea who wrote that book of the Bible.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 4:00 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Scared? Not hardly. My emotions are more of a mixture of pity (for your eternal soul) and righteous anger and a solemn desire for justice against you for your continued perversion of the truth and hatred for your creator. I would rather the Lord save you, but may His will be done if He doesn't. I really do hope you repent and put your trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.
You’re scared
I've exhausted my desire to correct you on this issue. You're more interested in winning an argument than listening to reason (ironically, the same thing you accuse others of doing) and I've wasted enough time throwing pearls before swine on this topic, so to speak.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 7:36 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I've wasted enough time throwing pearls before swine on this topic, so to speak.
Good. Go away. Take your "L" and keep walkiing.
Posted on 2/23/24 at 7:39 pm to Cheese Grits
So you can't eat meat on Fridays but you can diddle little boys on days that end in "Y"? Go Catholics!
Posted on 2/23/24 at 8:00 pm to TexSolo
quote:I am Catholic and I’ve never diddled any minors
So you can't eat meat on Fridays but you can diddle little boys on days that end in "Y"? Go Catholics!
Posted on 2/23/24 at 8:01 pm to Champagne
Why does the Tanakh not have these books?
Page 9 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News