Biblical Criticism.

gilbertc1908 said:

We agree basically.

Click to expand...

That is cool.

It does not happen enough around here.

:cheers:

gilbertc1908 said:

Catholicism has no issue with the Big Bang or Evolution. As GK Chesterton wrote more than 100 years ago about Evolution

Click to expand...

If it were not for their many defects then I would really like the Catholic Church, and I try hard to like her.

In many ways the Catholics are far above the many Protestants in so many ways.

Martin Luther was very smart too about the Bible and he was an expert at the old languages and he really wrote the very first Bible translation for the common people in German, and Luther was a Catholic Monk which speaks very well of that Catholic Church of those times which could spring up a man like that.

I like this quote here below:

"I am much afraid that schools will prove to be great gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of Youth. I advise no one to place his child where the scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which men are not increasingly occupied with the word of God must become corrupt." ~ Martin Luther (1483-1546AD)

JP Cusick said:

The term "Criticism" does not really mean to criticize, as the name of "Biblical Criticism" is just the name given by Scholars of the Bible trying to explain the process of scrutinizing the text of the Bible - for better or for worse.

Click to expand...

A person is crippled concerning God and about humanity with out knowing this in the link below:

The United States and Britain in Prophecy

JP Cusick said:

A person is crippled concerning God and about humanity with out knowing this in the link below:

The United States and Britain in Prophecy

Click to expand...

What a farrago of nonsense. I liked the phoney etymology for the word 'British'. Do you have links to any more comedy sites?


"Dr. W. Holt Yates says, "The word 'Saxons' is derived from the 'sons of Isaac,' by dropping the prefix 'I.'" Dr. Yates appears to be out of touch with reality.

JP Cusick said:

There is an available book about the J source and it is called: The Book of J, and it gives all of the "J" text and they claim it was written by a Woman because it so often gives the woman's perspective.

I see Moses as like King Arther in that people wrote about them as legend and used their names but they wrote nothing their selves.

If Moses had actually written a book ( papyrus manuscripts) about his-self then he would have written in the first person pronoun instead of writing in the third person using his own name.

Click to expand...

I can't read Hebrew, so all I can go on, is my own Limited study and what other People have written, (I'm much better at NT and early christian material, I read enough koine greek to get by and I'm more familiar With the background material).

As far as J being from a womens perspective, I have no idea.

Do you think Moses, or a tradition going back to Moses, wouuld have been the Source for some of the Law code material in any of the Sources? I'm not talking about the narratives here.

If you are saying that Moses never wrote the Mosaic laws then I am with you on that, as those laws mostly come from the P and D sources which were added later to the original J source.

But just for discussion - a big example is that the 10 commandments say "Thou shalt not murder" and then the Mosaic laws tell how you can kill a person for this and kill for that and kill people for other reasons, so Moses gave exceptions to the bigger law.

Click to expand...

I'm saying I don't know who wrote the Mosaic Law, I was trying to figure out Your position.

I think the 10 commandments relation to the Law, is somewhat similar to the rabbinic traditions relation of the Talmud to the written Torah, i.e. the Torah is a paraphrase, or a general outline, and the Mishnah gives the compete Law and the gemara a fuller explination. I think the 10 commandements were meant as general principles, whereas the Law code went deeper into how that would work out.

I'm quite conservative in my approach, I tend to think of the writers and redactors as intelligent (as they obviously were), and that apparent contradictions sometimes just need to be examined more an analyzed.

I find it strange that a lot of the more skeptical exegetes will praise the literary and philosophical genius of the books of the bible, yet not look behind aparent contradictions and assume that in those cases the writers or redactors were basically morons who forgot to check.

1. Jesus paid the punishment for all sins, so the laws which thereby created sin are still real and we reap whatever we sow in this life - but God no longer has any punishment because Jesus paid the price in full. Romans 6:23

2. It is the same if the police do not enforce the 55 mph speed limit then that law is nullified because the punishment is gone, but if one crashes going over the limit then it is still a more severe crash and consequence - we still reap what we sow.

3. The old laws were given as a warning to mankind and the warnings were not intended to just be commands, and like a young child gets commands but as they mature then the commands become optional.

Click to expand...

(Btw why do you use the KJV?, I don't have a problem With it as long as it's just for general referance, bu I'm just curious).

1. You're right, but the Law, or at least the principles beind the laws are still binding whether or not they result in punishment.

2. Fair enough, but the moral nature of the Law is somewhat different than a modern secular Law.

3. I agree to a point.

The only reason that I say that Luke came first is because that link said it, and I have no problem viewing Matthew as coming before Luke.

I do not see how that peculiarity would make any difference to me.

As to Jesus speaking in Aramaic then that is quite clear as in Mark 5:41 but then Matthew leaves out the Aramaic for that same event in Matthew 9:25

Click to expand...

Yeah, that would actually make sense though, if matthew was origionally a Aramaic or Hebrew document, everything would be translated, it wouldn't make any sense to leave in mundane quotations that don't really have a purpose in another Language.

JP Cusick said:

I agree with you except that I like that distinction in that Paul was watering-down the message given by Jesus (and as given by James).

Most people have no real idea as to whatever "love" means, and even though "God is love" we human beings are NOT.

I say that Jesus was far more accurate and inspired by telling physical ethics and morality and of physical acts of charity and of mercy and NOT about expressing the emotion of love.

What Paul tells about Love is fine and cool, but it is milk for babes, in that love is not enough, just as being spiritual is not enough.

James the brother of Jesus said it rather precisely with these words = "Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." see James 2:14-20

Paul is a great stepping stone to a higher level, but we must embrace Paul and then move onward to Christ.

That is the way that I find it to be.

Click to expand...

Ok, Now HERE is where we might dissagree.

I don't beleive James was preserving Jesus' origional Message and Paul was not, I think they were doing 2 totally different Things.

James Message was a Whole lot like Jesus' basic social/moral Message, James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church, and thus a really big figure in early Christianity, he wouldn't be writing letters to organize Church politics or get into escatology, his letter was basically a moral/social kind treatise.

But at the SAME TIME Jesus was very escatological, Jesus was all about the Kingdom of God, and all about the end and so on. Paul Writes a lot about love, and a lot of that comes from the Johanian Jesus, (it's also there in the synoptics, but With more of a Jewish slant), but Paul Writes a Whole lot about escatology, which was Jesus' main concern, and about Church politics and so on, which was not Jesus' main concern but was absolutely necessary after the Church was founded.

Paul never said "love is enough" he gives all sorts of advices and so on. This is the big confusion People have With James vrs Paul, Paul was discussing, when discussing faith vrs Works, the Fidelity to Christ and to God vrs the Works of the Law ..... James was talking about faith as in belief vrs Works as in ethics, they are using the Words totally differently, Apples and Oranges, you see this distinction made in the dead sea scrolls material as well.

But then again, I agree, paul isn't good enough alone, you need the gospels, you need james, and you need the rest of it. But without Paul you dont' really have the theology tied together.

RGacky3 said:

I can't read Hebrew, so all I can go on, is my own Limited study and what other People have written,

Click to expand...

I can not read Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic but I learn what sources are better than others, as like the Strong's Concordance is mostly reliable.

RGacky3 said:

Do you think Moses, or a tradition going back to Moses, would have been the Source for some of the Law code material in any of the Sources? I'm not talking about the narratives here.

Click to expand...

Yes, I see no reason to doubt that it came from Moses.

Of course the name itself means nothing to me, as if it comes from some other person by any name then we do not really know who is Moses anymore than if it was some Priest or Leader of any other name.

But still - coming from Moses is fine.

RGacky3 said:

I'm saying I don't know who wrote the Mosaic Law, I was trying to figure out Your position.

Click to expand...

I would say that I still see the Mosaic law as inspired from God - even if it is expired now.

RGacky3 said:

I think the 10 commandments relation to the Law, is somewhat similar to the rabbinic traditions relation of the Talmud to the written Torah, i.e. the Torah is a paraphrase, or a general outline, and the Mishnah gives the compete Law and the gemara a fuller explination. I think the 10 commandments were meant as general principles, whereas the Law code went deeper into how that would work out.

Click to expand...

That is logical and sensible to me, and I would agree.

The Scholar book that I read said that there were probably just 8 commandments at first, and the commandments almost certainly came from the Egyptian book of the dead, and the commandment about the Sabbath day was originally just a command to keep the yearly Passover Day.

RGacky3 said:

I'm quite conservative in my approach, I tend to think of the writers and redactors as intelligent (as they obviously were), and that apparent contradictions sometimes just need to be examined more an analyzed.

Click to expand...

I agree.

RGacky3 said:

I find it strange that a lot of the more skeptical exegetes will praise the literary and philosophical genius of the books of the bible, yet not look behind aparent contradictions and assume that in those cases the writers or redactors were basically morons who forgot to check.

Click to expand...

I would have to look at specific references as I would not agree with that as a general rule.

I am one who has never found any contradiction to ever hold up as a real contradiction.

RGacky3 said:

(Btw why do you use the KJV?, I don't have a problem With it as long as it's just for general referance, bu I'm just curious).

Click to expand...

The KJV is far better in the Old (elder) Testament because it is far more literally translated.

And I use it most simply because that prevents arguments with Christians who say that I am avoiding the KJV.

I have read through several different versions of the Bible and if I truly picked a favorite then I love the paraphrase Bible called "The Book" which I found to be refreshing and enlightening, but most people view the idea of "paraphrase" as some negative word and negative method instead of being literal, and yet there is no such thing as a literal translation of any two languages and to purposely do a paraphrase Bible then they ("The Book") gave a great translation - IMO.

RGacky3 said:

Ok, Now HERE is where we might dissagree.

I don't beleive James was preserving Jesus' origional Message and Paul was not, I think they were doing 2 totally different Things.

James Message was a Whole lot like Jesus' basic social/moral Message, James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church, and thus a really big figure in early Christianity, he wouldn't be writing letters to organize Church politics or get into escatology, his letter was basically a moral/social kind treatise.

But at the SAME TIME Jesus was very escatological, Jesus was all about the Kingdom of God, and all about the end and so on. Paul Writes a lot about love, and a lot of that comes from the Johanian Jesus, (it's also there in the synoptics, but With more of a Jewish slant), but Paul Writes a Whole lot about escatology, which was Jesus' main concern, and about Church politics and so on, which was not Jesus' main concern but was absolutely necessary after the Church was founded.

Paul never said "love is enough" he gives all sorts of advices and so on. This is the big confusion People have With James vrs Paul, Paul was discussing, when discussing faith vrs Works, the Fidelity to Christ and to God vrs the Works of the Law ..... James was talking about faith as in belief vrs Works as in ethics, they are using the Words totally differently, Apples and Oranges, you see this distinction made in the dead sea scrolls material as well.

But then again, I agree, paul isn't good enough alone, you need the gospels, you need james, and you need the rest of it. But without Paul you dont' really have the theology tied together.

Click to expand...

I do not disagree at all, as you have it well said here.

I highlighted the words in your quote where I say that you are interpreting that correctly, and THAT is where Paul goes astray or more likely that is simply where people go astray based on Paul.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OR DOCTRINE for the "fidelity to Christ and to God" nor is there anything that undermines works.

If a heathen who bows down to idols but DOES THE WORK of God by serving humanity then they are more acceptable than anyone who does no such work and yet clings to God and to Jesus.

It matters far less what one believe as opposed to what we do.

JP Cusick said:

I do not disagree at all, as you have it well said here.

I highlighted the words in your quote where I say that you are interpreting that correctly, and THAT is where Paul goes astray or more likely that is simply where people go astray based on Paul.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OR DOCTRINE for the "fidelity to Christ and to God" nor is there anything that undermines works.

If a heathen who bows down to idols but DOES THE WORK of God by serving humanity then they are more acceptable than anyone who does no such work and yet clings to God and to Jesus.

It matters far less what one believe as opposed to what we do.

Click to expand...

This is more a question of theology, but I totally dissagree, Loving God With Your Whole heart mind and soul is the first of the comandments, BEFORE loving Your neighbor.

RGacky3 said:

This is more a question of theology, but I totally dissagree, Loving God With Your Whole heart mind and soul is the first of the comandments, BEFORE loving Your neighbor.

Click to expand...

That means you do have Paul figured out and internalized.

So the next step is to step over Paul and move onward to Jesus.

It appears to me that Paul trying to create a Church which he never really succeeded at doing and so Paul was misguided in that, and that is why Paul put restrictions of both God and on Jesus (for a Church) which we do not find in any of the four Gospels.

IMO - Paul himself being misguided does not mean that God was misguided, because as I say that Paul was the latter version of Moses then God wanted Paul and his Epistles to be published in order to give people what the people really want - a Church - even if the Church is always man made.

Jesus said that Moses gave a watered down compromised message because of the "hardness of our hearts", see Matthew 19:7-8, and so too that is why Paul did the same.

That is the way that I understand it, and I am just saying as I believe.

RAMOSS said:

No, on the contrary. Matthew was written in Greek, apparently from someone who was a native speaker of Greek. That would eliminate a 'disciple' who was from Juddah.

Click to expand...

Matthew was written in Aramaic; the Church Fathers are quite clear about this.

Was Matthew's Gospel first written in Aramaic or Hebrew? | Catholic Answers

phattonez said:

Matthew was written in Aramaic; the Church Fathers are quite clear about this.

Was Matthew's Gospel first written in Aramaic or Hebrew? | Catholic Answers

Click to expand...

"Catholic Answers" is not a very scholarly site. I noticed on thing they did not do is actually , well, look at the text of Matthew in the extant copies that are in Greek and examine them. Yes, we have a claim from Pappias that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. However, What the 'Catholic Answers' staff failed to do is , well, actually examine the text of Matthew in the extant Greek. Yes, there are some 'pateristic' folks who push for an Aramaic original Matthew , but one thing about higher Biblical criticism is that the text is examined to see if there are indications of translation.

With the copy of Matthew that is currently in the Gospels, there is some indication that some of the Aramaic idioms have been translated, but that the bulk of the writings was originally written in Greek.

Yes, there was the claim that Matthew was written in Aramaic. However, when it comes to the copy of the Gospel that is labels "The Gospel of Matthew" that we currently have, there is very strong positive evidence it was written in Greek.

Now, that leaves to possibilities. One, Pappias was talking about a different text or two, Pappias was just plain wrong. Since we do not have any text that could be dated to the right time from in the Aramaic, neither of those two possibilities can be ruled out. What can be ruled out, with a high degree of confidence is that the book in the New Testament that is labeled 'Gospel of Matthew' was written in Aramaic.

All the other claims about the Aramaic version of Matthew was much later than the claim from Pappias , so we don't know if that is where the other people got their idea about it from.

I have noticed in the past that Catholic org has a lot of people with strong opinions and faith. However, their scholarship often leaves a lot to be desired.

I will point out from Wiki that says

The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the second century.[6][7] The tradition that the author was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (c.100-140 CE), who is cited by the Church historian Eusebius (260-340 CE), as follows: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia: sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language ( Hebraïdi dialektōi— perhaps "Hebraic style"), and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen - perhaps "translated") them as best he could."[8][Notes 1] On the surface, this implies that Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic by the apostle Matthew and later translated into Greek, but nowhere does the author claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."[9][6] Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.[8] The consensus is that Papias does not describe the Gospel of Matthew as we know it, and it is generally accepted that Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew.[10]

Click to expand...

This is about what is appropriate for this thread, and if someone wants to go further into it, I would suggest starting a different thread.

JP Cusick said:

Biblical Criticism started in earnest in 1835 with the book "Life of Jesus" by David Strauss.

At the second Vatican Counsel 1965 the Catholic Church embraced Biblical Criticism (especial credit goes to Pope Paul VI) which was an extremely enlightened thing for them to do, link HERE.

My own view is that the Biblical Criticism shows us that huge parts of the Bible are fiction or myth, and that some parts as like Jonah being swallowed by a big fish was just a child's story as like Cinderella or King Arther are for today.

That does not make it as a lie, but the truth does tend to get trampled under foot until we learn what is false and what is true.

This is an invite for anyone familiar with the Biblical Criticism topics then we might discuss it here.

And I do intend to post a few more specific "critical" items here in due time, as like on the Synoptic Problem and the JEDP sources.

Click to expand...

Your ignorance of biblical teachings - plural - is as profound as it is deep.

One simple theology class would relieve you of these notions..

First, the Bible is NOT a book, it is a library.

Two, all of the stories are children's stories as the story telling is designed to teach the faith to the young.
Three, in the many, many books, some of which had several authors, there are various events that are approached by different writers.
Three, the Bible is not law. It speaks of law, and lists them, but the majority of the book is historical.
Four, much of the Bible uses literary technique, poems, songs, stories and yes, fiction as does modern culture.
Five, the Bible is a product of verbal lore and fireside storytelling, carried down generation after generation.
Six, very little of the Bible should be taken literally as it needs placement in context, time, author and intended audience.
Seven, in that tradition, several books contain "fictions" i.e., the story of Jonah is not about a fish at all. It, like many stories is about the folly of trying to resist God, What better way to get and hold children's attention while wondering in the desert than to create a dark, scary place.

phattonez said:

Matthew was written in Aramaic; the Church Fathers are quite clear about this.

Was Matthew's Gospel first written in Aramaic or Hebrew? | Catholic Answers

Click to expand...

When Catholic Scholars say such a thing as that then that carries a lot of weight in the world of Biblical Criticism.

The problem remain though that there is no ancient copy of Matthew in Aramaic, and having no surviving artifact means that it is a dead debate - IMO.


=================================

Fearandloathing said:

Your ignorance of biblical teachings - plural - is as profound as it is deep.

blah ... blah ... blah ...

Click to expand...

Yes, well ignorance is a thing which can be cured with study and learning.

I do the best that I can with what I have.

JP Cusick said:

When Catholic Scholars say such a thing as that then that carries a lot of weight in the world of Biblical Criticism.

The problem remain though that there is no ancient copy of Matthew in Aramaic, and having no surviving artifact means that it is a dead debate - IMO.


=================================


Yes, well ignorance is a thing which can be cured with study and learning.

I do the best that I can with what I have.

Click to expand...

quote:

blah ... blah ... blah ...

Very scholarly.

JP Cusick said:

I agree with you except that I like that distinction in that Paul was watering-down the message given by Jesus (and as given by James).

Most people have no real idea as to whatever "love" means, and even though "God is love" we human beings are NOT.

I say that Jesus was far more accurate and inspired by telling physical ethics and morality and of physical acts of charity and of mercy and NOT about expressing the emotion of love.

What Paul tells about Love is fine and cool, but it is milk for babes, in that love is not enough, just as being spiritual is not enough.

James the brother of Jesus said it rather precisely with these words = "Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." see James 2:14-20

Paul is a great stepping stone to a higher level, but we must embrace Paul and then move onward to Christ.

That is the way that I find it to be.

Click to expand...

1. I usually figured it's the other way around, you start With Jesus, then move on to Paul, but I suppose it could be the otherway around.

2.Any examples?

3. I think we need to distinguish here, Law, chuch policy, and so on With principle and ethics. the former is based on the latter, but the latter is main thing.

Paul and Moses were mostly about the former. Jesus talked mainly about the latter. But that's fine , you need both, and actually, you need Jesus more than paul definately.

But Pauls main contribution wasn't rules, or Church policy, it was theology.

ludin said:

Not conservative at all and very much the main stream thought since they were set in cannon.

When were the gospels written and by whom?| Dating the gospels is very important | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.

yes it is very possible that matthew is similar to mark because mark was a disciple to Peter who and through Peter he would have met matthew.
who i am sure shared his experiences with Mark as well.

you seem to not realize that the authors of the gospels all knew each other and were friends.

Mark was a disciple of Peter so he knew the 12.
Luke was a companion to Paul so he knew all fo them as well.
mathew and John were both followers of Christ.

Click to expand...

1. There is no evidecne that matthew was written in Aramaic or Hebrew, at least not to my knowledge, many People thing Papias was talking about a different Gospel, than the one we have.

The synoptic problem isn't solved by the fact that they were friends, thats just misunderstanding the problem.

Mark seams to have the basic story, matthew and Luke take from mark, add their own stuff, and then seam to take from a common Source, John is totally different.

Why did Mark leave out the Q material? Why did Luke and Matthew take in parts of mark and not others? Why did they have different Versions of the Q? Why does John have totally different stories?

Saying they were all friends doesn't solve anything.

We don't know if Matthew the disciples actually wrote Matthew.

JP Cusick said:

When Catholic Scholars say such a thing as that then that carries a lot of weight in the world of Biblical Criticism.

The problem remain though that there is no ancient copy of Matthew in Aramaic, and having no surviving artifact means that it is a dead debate - IMO.

Click to expand...

The fact that there is no copy shouldn't be a problem, there are a lot of Things we don't have anceint copies for. Look at the textual evidence for non biblical ancient material, it's sparse.

The reason I don't believe Matthew was written in Aramaic, is linguistically, scholars have shown that it doesn't translate back into Aramaic very well.

Also Mark was written in Greek, and matthew took a lot of Matthew.

There ARE Hebrew translations of Matthew though.

RGacky3 said:

1. There is no evidecne that matthew was written in Aramaic or Hebrew, at least not to my knowledge, many People thing Papias was talking about a different Gospel, than the one we have.

The synoptic problem isn't solved by the fact that they were friends, thats just misunderstanding the problem.

Mark seams to have the basic story, matthew and Luke take from mark, add their own stuff, and then seam to take from a common Source, John is totally different.

Why did Mark leave out the Q material? Why did Luke and Matthew take in parts of mark and not others? Why did they have different Versions of the Q? Why does John have totally different stories?

Saying they were all friends doesn't solve anything.

We don't know if Matthew the disciples actually wrote Matthew.

Click to expand...

i think i will trust the people that set the cannon down over random internet poster who is a JW at that.
the problem is that the gospels conflict with your watchtower doctrine, because the Gospels claim the divinity of Christ.

ludin said:

i think i will trust the people that set the cannon down over random internet poster who is a JW at that.
the problem is that the gospels conflict with your watchtower doctrine, because the Gospels claim the divinity of Christ.

Click to expand...

...

1. I don't have a watchtower doctrine, I have a biblical doctrine,
2. We wern't talking about the divinity of Christ.

3. It's not me saying it, it's scholars who have studied the actual greek text of matthwe.
4. No one knows if the "matthew" that Papias was talking about was the same gospel we have now.
5. The actual GREEK LANGUAGE written in Matthew doesn't translate back into aramaic.

Nice strawman/Red herring though.

RGacky3 said:

1. I usually figured it's the other way around, you start With Jesus, then move on to Paul, but I suppose it could be the otherway around.

2.Any examples?

Click to expand...

I like going back to the reference of Moses concerning Paul, as in God came first then came Moses, and Jesus came first and then came Paul, so when Jesus said concerning Moses that "from the beginning it was not so" Matthew 19:7-8 then THEN Jesus is saying to look at the former and not at the latter.

1) There is the example where-as Jesus said to "be ye perfect" while Paul tells us that all people fall short.
2) A bigger example would be that Jesus said to feed the hungry while Paul said that if they do not work then they do not eat.
My own view is that Paul could be making a reference to spiritual food, in that we all must serve God and thereby we each feed off of our own work so if anyone fails to do their own spiritual work then they will not be fed the spiritual food - but few people like my interpretation of Paul in that.

A better thing that I find about Jesus is when we take what Jesus said and apply it as deeply and as literally as we can imagine and then I find the message of Jesus to be far more daring and powerful then most people would ever imagine.

This is a thing that I learned from the Mahatma Gandhi as like where Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and when we take that literally then it means to defy the person doing the smacking and press the violent person to hit the other cheek. That is a very proactive and provocative thing to do.
The idea that some one smacks you so you say that is okay and walk away - THAT IS NOT turning the other cheek.

RGacky3 said:

3. I think we need to distinguish here, Law, chuch policy, and so on With principle and ethics. the former is based on the latter, but the latter is main thing.

Click to expand...

The former matters most because the former is the basis of the latter.

First comes law then comes the Church - first comes principles and then come the ethics.

I hope yours was just a typo, but if not then you are invited to explain that.

RGacky3 said:

Paul and Moses were mostly about the former. Jesus talked mainly about the latter. But that's fine , you need both, and actually, you need Jesus more than paul definately.

Click to expand...

I really see you having that backwards.

Both Paul and Moses can later, and both God and Jesus came at the first or the former.

Jesus surely did talk about the "latter days" so Jesus was not the latter.

We still need Paul to step up to Jesus, but even then we must use Jesus to step up even farther unto God the Father.

RGacky3 said:

But Pauls main contribution wasn't rules, or Church policy, it was theology.

Click to expand...

That is another interesting point which I had not thought of.

Perhaps that too explains why Theology has been such a confusing pain and even a reason for wars and divisions.

One time it was said very earnestly to me that = Who cares what they believe when they treat people like [garbage]. The word "garbage" is inserted to replace the real word used there.

The true definition of a hypocrisy is when a person knows right and speaks right but does otherwise. And Jesus denounced hypocrisy over and over again.

There seems to be various degrees of Theology, just as you and I are doing our own Theology, but it appears that same parts of Theology can take us or anyone down a wrong direction.

RGacky3 said:

The fact that there is no copy shouldn't be a problem, there are a lot of Things we don't have anceint copies for. Look at the textual evidence for non biblical ancient material, it's sparse.

The reason I don't believe Matthew was written in Aramaic, is linguistically, scholars have shown that it doesn't translate back into Aramaic very well.

Also Mark was written in Greek, and matthew took a lot of Matthew.

There ARE Hebrew translations of Matthew though.

Click to expand...

The real problem or the bigger problem as I see it is that the Gospels are all written in Greek, and the old Greek is a barbaric language.

The Christian argument for a literal Hell is based on the old Greek word "Hades" which was the name of the Greek God of the underworld and thereby a Hell is based on the old Greek religion. The word "hell" and Greek "Hades" in English simply means a grave as in burying dead bodies in any kind of grave.

Other mistakes include that the Greek writing did not have punctuation as like no periods or commas, and so Jesus on the cross speaking to the other person on another cross said:
"42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." KJV. Luke 23:42-43
The comma needs to be after the word "Today" and not prior to that word and as such it changes the meaning of the words.
The man said to Jesus to REMEMBER him which means REMEMBER at a later time, so Jesus said no, Jesus said He granted the man's request there and then on that day "today" which is what the misplaced comma distorts.
The distortion is that the other man would go to paradise on that same day "TODAY" and that is a very big error based on a simple little comma.

RAMOSS said:

Luke apparently use Josephus' Antiquities as a source. This would put his writing after 95 C.E.

Click to expand...

If anything, it's more likely that Josephus used Luke's writings, since Luke never mentioned the sacking of Jerusalem or other events after 65 AD.

Most scholars have Luke's Gospel dated before 70 AD. And Matthew and Mark also.

RAMOSS said:

This is about what is appropriate for this thread, and if someone wants to go further into it, I would suggest starting a different thread.

Click to expand...

I looked at the source that Wiki stated. The argument provided is incredibly weak and underwhelming. What do you think of it?

Logicman said:

If anything, it's more likely that Josephus used Luke's writings, since Luke never mentioned the sacking of Jerusalem or other events after 65 AD.

Most scholars have Luke's Gospel dated before 70 AD. And Matthew and Mark also.

Click to expand...

Further evidence for the idea that Matthew was written first is that he is so focused with the Sadducees, whom the other Gospels don't talk about nearly as much (remember that the Sadducees were done after the destruction of Jerusalem).

JP Cusick said:

When Catholic Scholars say such a thing as that then that carries a lot of weight in the world of Biblical Criticism.

The problem remain though that there is no ancient copy of Matthew in Aramaic, and having no surviving artifact means that it is a dead debate - IMO.

Click to expand...

There are no surviving artifacts of a Greek original of Matthew either. We only have manuscripts.

Logicman said:

If anything, it's more likely that Josephus used Luke's writings, since Luke never mentioned the sacking of Jerusalem or other events after 65 AD.

Most scholars have Luke's Gospel dated before 70 AD. And Matthew and Mark also.

Click to expand...

And here we have first of all, the logical fallacy known as "argument from Ignorance', followed by a lie. Most inerrant fundamentalist scholars might date Luke's Gospel before 65 AD, but that is not most scholars.

From Wiki

Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110.[13] The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[9] There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[14]

Click to expand...