• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Biblical Criticism.

The Baron said:
What faith tradition do you belong to?
Click to expand...
I do not belong to any faith or religion,

and as such I am able to embrace the right stuff from every religion or faith or every ideology or from any source, while I can also reject any wrongs from any such source too.

I have seriously studied every religion and ideology recorded throughout all of human history, and it took me many long years to do so.

The Baron said:
Uh, no.

With respect to the 120 year life of man, this is a time limit on how old people are allowed to get. It’s a limitation and not an alteration.

With respect to 2 Peter 3 and Psalm 90, these are comments of the greatness / eternal nature of God illustrating that there are none like Him.

There is no alteration of time here, either.
Click to expand...
The point remains that people like Einstein and myself too can get a vision from the Bible text that TIME is both relative and changeable or adaptable, and thereby it opens up a door into the concept of the 4th dimension of Space-Time.

If one reads the Bible while viewing the existence of a real God then if one day for God is like a thousand years for mankind here on earth - then TIME becomes relative indeed.


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


RGacky3 said:
I think post "A marginal Jew" by John Meier, and other writings focusing on the Jewish Nature of Jesus ... At least New Testament Scholarship in the 19th and 20th Century has to be heavily questioned.
Click to expand...
For me I love the words of Christ and especially "the sermon on the mount", but as to the person of Jesus then I see nothing more to seek after.

The Apostle Paul though is a different subject, as I see Paul as the second-Moses, just as Jesus was the second Adam, and that explains the inclusion of Paul and explains Paul's watered down gospel - just as Moses watered down (softened) the 10 commandments.

RGacky3 said:
I think you need to deal With all the Sources eventually, by the time you get to the New Testament all the Sources are in play, especially the deuteronomist Source, so even though there are Things in the Sources you might not like, you still have to grapple With it, because it belonds in the narritative.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with this.

It is just a super fascination to me that there was an original document (the J source) because "original" has a powerful draw for me.

RGacky3 said:
I don't know why anyone has a problem With Biblican Criticism, some of my favorate writers in the Field are orthodox, conservative Christians, hell the biggest name these days NT Wright, is an Anglican Bishop.
Click to expand...
Thomas Cahill wrote "The Gifts of the Jews" but the only truly revealing thing (yet huge thing) was that he pointed out that when Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac then it was God who stopped the Hebrews from doing human sacrifice.

That point is brilliant, because as told in the Bible Abraham saw nothing wrong with sacrificing his son as that was what people did in those times, and the reason that it was a huge event is because God stopped the sacrifice and put an end to the human sacrifice.

Also (Cahill does not say this part) is that if the Bible is true then all humanity had the concept of a savior who was to die, and that was the idea behind sacrificing an innocent person or child as an offering of a savior to God or for God - it was a twisted and evil concept which ended for the Hebrews with Abraham who did not sacrifice Isaac.

Also (even though it is not recorded) God told Abraham that instead of Isaac that He God would in due time sacrifice His own son - Jesus.
 
JP Cusick said:
For me I love the words of Christ and especially "the sermon on the mount", but as to the person of Jesus then I see nothing more to seek after.

The Apostle Paul though is a different subject, as I see Paul as the second-Moses, just as Jesus was the second Adam, and that explains the inclusion of Paul and explains Paul's watered down gospel - just as Moses watered down (softened) the 10 commandments.
Click to expand...

Had there not been an Apostle Paul, there probably would not have been a Christianity, you'd probably have just had another 1rst Century Messianic prophet who got killed and evertually everyone forgot about ... or it would have continued as just another Jewish sect.

I think although Paul is ultimately more difficult than Jesus, and a little less likeable, for the history of Christianity you need him.


1. Thomas Cahill wrote "The Gifts of the Jews" but the only truly revealing thing (yet huge thing) was that he pointed out that when Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac then it was God who stopped the Hebrews from doing human sacrifice.

That point is brilliant, because as told in the Bible Abraham saw nothing wrong with sacrificing his son as that was what people did in those times, and the reason that it was a huge event is because God stopped the sacrifice and put an end to the human sacrifice.

2, Also (Cahill does not say this part) is that if the Bible is true then all humanity had the concept of a savior who was to die, and that was the idea behind sacrificing an innocent person or child as an offering of a savior to God or for God - it was a twisted and evil concept which ended for the Hebrews with Abraham who did not sacrifice Isaac.

Also (even though it is not recorded) God told Abraham that instead of Isaac that He God would in due time sacrifice His own son - Jesus.
Click to expand...

1. I've read a lot about that too, and it's important, a lot of the kind of "aha look at that ****" atheists, take the OT and read it as a perscriptive document, i.e. this happened or this was written thus it must mean the bible is saying this is good .... No, the bible has poetry, narratives, histories, stories and so on, all of which do different Things and make different Points in different ways .... Just because it's there doesn't mean its "right" more likely it's a narrative trying to make an ultimate point, it isn't to be read as "so and so did this, that means this is good to do." the point is "what is this story trying to say."

2. THAT is why Historical criticism when it comes to the bible needs to either stay away from theology, or be well read on theology before they actually comment on it .... Because that description of atonement theology is rediculous, NO theologian would take that seriously, becuase that's simply NOT the theory of substitutional atonement.

Thats one problem I have With some popularizers like Bart Erhman, they do the New Testament Criticism game from a historical standpoint, and then try and go into theology when they end up making fools of themselves.
 
JP Cusick said:
I do not belong to any faith or religion, and as such I am able to embrace the right stuff from every religion or faith or every ideology or from any source, while I can also reject any wrongs from any such source too.
Click to expand...

I believe this is known as Unitarian Universalism.

JP Cusick said:
I have seriously studied every religion and ideology recorded throughout all of human history, and it took me many long years to do so.
Click to expand...

If so, you must have drawn some conclusions…what are they?

JP Cusick said:
The point remains that people like Einstein and myself too can get a vision from the Bible text that TIME is both relative and changeable or adaptable, and thereby it opens up a door into the concept of the 4th dimension of Space-Time.
Click to expand...

Two points:

1. This is not a shot, mind you, more like an observation and it has been my observation that when people compare themselves or their abilities to someone like an Einstein it always strikes me that they never seem to accomplish the things an Einstein did.

2. The conclusions you drew in the examples you offered were incorrect so please detail how you can draw from an erroneous conclusion the concept of “space-time”.

JP Cusick said:
If one reads the Bible while viewing the existence of a real God then if one day for God is like a thousand years for mankind here on earth - then TIME becomes relative indeed.
Click to expand...

If you are saying that time is relative for God I would agree as God is eternal--having no beginning or end.

If you are saying that time is relative to the individual then you have no basis for making such a claim.
 
The Baron said:


I believe this is known as Unitarian Universalism.
Click to expand...


They do that, but so do tons of other People who are just "spiritual but not religious."

Two points:

1. This is not a shot, mind you, more like an observation and it has been my observation that when people compare themselves or their abilities to someone like an Einstein it always strikes me that they never seem to accomplish the things an Einstein did.

2. The conclusions you drew in the examples you offered were incorrect so please detail how you can draw from an erroneous conclusion the concept of “space-time”.



If you are saying that time is relative for God I would agree as God is eternal--having no beginning or end.

If you are saying that time is relative to the individual then you have no basis for making such a claim.
Click to expand...

Can we please keep this thread on actual biblical criticism? I know you didn't bring it up, but it would be kind of sad if this thread gets hijacked.
 
RGacky3 said:
Had there not been an Apostle Paul, there probably would not have been a Christianity, you'd probably have just had another 1rst Century Messianic prophet who got killed and evertually everyone forgot about ... or it would have continued as just another Jewish sect.

I think although Paul is ultimately more difficult than Jesus, and a little less likeable, for the history of Christianity you need him.
Click to expand...
I am NOT truly anti-Paul just as I am not anti-Moses, but both of them gave a watered down message, and I do believe that God wanted them to give an inferior message because most people simply can not deal with the stronger message.

Jesus said this about Moses that Moses lowered the standard, see it here in Matthew 19:7-8

The Apostle Paul said that he gave "milk instead of strong meat" in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3

People who followed Moses did not make it to God, and those that follow Paul do not make it to Christ.

Another example is that Jesus said to "be ye perfect" while Paul declares that "all men fall short" so the higher standard is brought down to a lower standard.

But I still see God as orchestrating this since Paul is the latter version of Moses, in that both are just a stepping step for anyone to go on up then we first use the lower steps in order to reach the higher steps.

RGacky3 said:
1. I've read a lot about that too, and it's important, a lot of the kind of "aha look at that ****" atheists, take the OT and read it as a perscriptive document, i.e. this happened or this was written thus it must mean the bible is saying this is good .... No, the bible has poetry, narratives, histories, stories and so on, all of which do different Things and make different Points in different ways .... Just because it's there doesn't mean its "right" more likely it's a narrative trying to make an ultimate point, it isn't to be read as "so and so did this, that means this is good to do." the point is "what is this story trying to say."

2. THAT is why Historical criticism when it comes to the bible needs to either stay away from theology, or be well read on theology before they actually comment on it .... Because that description of atonement theology is rediculous, NO theologian would take that seriously, becuase that's simply NOT the theory of substitutional atonement.

Thats one problem I have With some popularizers like Bart Erhman, they do the New Testament Criticism game from a historical standpoint, and then try and go into theology when they end up making fools of themselves.
Click to expand...
I totally agree.


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

The Baron said:
If so, you must have drawn some conclusions…what are they?
Click to expand...
I really have some truly super cool stuff from every religion and ideology, and I truly would love to share it in detail, but it really would be sidetracking the topic of Biblical Criticism and I do not want to do that.

I really have tried on other forums to discuss cool things like the "1st Noble Truth" and about the "dark wisdom of the Sanskrit" or the brilliance of Muhammad - but every time it degenerates into petty competitions claiming that Christ and Christianity are everything and nothing else matters etc.

Biblical Criticism is just another stepping-stone in the high ladder of seeking after the truths of God.

The Baron said:
This is not a shot, mind you, more like an observation and it has been my observation that when people compare themselves or their abilities to someone like an Einstein it always strikes me that they never seem to accomplish the things an Einstein did.
Click to expand...
I did not compare myself with Einstein as I simply said that the basic concept of relativity can be found in the Bible, but then Einstein took that to extremely farther places then what I could do.

Einstein told is accurately when he declared - "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So right there Einstein told us about that one source of his information.
 
JP Cusick said:
A better link to explain what is Biblical Criticism:

The New World Encyclopedia - Biblical Criticism.
Click to expand...
In the New Testament there are two (2) stories about the birth of Jesus (real name Yesu - short form of Joshua) given in Matthew 1:1 through 2:23 and the other account is in Luke 1:1 through 2:52.

These two (2) stories are NOT a part of the original Matthew or Luke documents, in that they both have different styles of writing and of language then what follows in chapter 3:1 of both Matthew and Luke where they start copying from the Gospel of Mark at the place where the 3 synoptic align at Mark 1:1 telling the beginning starting with the Baptist.

The account given in Matthew is from the perspective of Joseph, as in Matthew 1:20 the Angel talked to Joseph, while in Luke the given perspective is from Mary, as in Luke 1:30 the Angel talked to Mary.

It is obvious from the point of Biblical Criticism that both Matthew and Luke added those given stories of Jesus birth onto the rest of their writings, and the evidence points to Joseph as the author of his own story in Matthew since it is his perspective, but the account from Luke concerning Mary is most likely written by either Zacharias or Elizabeth (the cousin of Mary) as it appears they tell their own account at the same time they also tell Mary's story which she surely told to them.

The text in Luke 1:68 is very significant to scholars of BC when it says this = "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel;" because where it says "Lord God" it is using the ancient Hebrew language / words of "Yahweh Elohim" as that is very unusual, and it points for me as evidence that the elderly priest named Zacharias Luke 1:5 (or his wife Elizabeth) are the most likely authors of Luke 1:1 through 2:52, because the elderly Hebrew Priest would be most likely to use that ancient Hebrew name for God, and they would have known and included Mary's accounting too.
 
RGacky3 said:
I don't think Q source has been proven to be innacurate at all.

The theory you're talking about has plenty of problems, such as the fact that what Matthew takes from Mark is done in a different way than the way Matthew takes from Q (or the common Luke/Matthew material), and some of it seams like it's closer to the origional phrasing. Also Q taken seperately, looks and flows perfectly as a sayings gospel.

The fact that we don't have any actual Q manuscripts isn't really a problem, if you consider that after the material was included in Matthew or Luke (especially Matthew, which was much more popular with the early church) there was no reason to to keep producing Q material, and when the galilean Churches from which it is thought Q sprung from, became less important compared to the Jerusalem Church and the Churches in Greek and Roman cities, the writings they used took more importance.

As far as the dating of Matthew, most scholars put Matthew AND luke in the 80s.

That being said the dating is VERY difficult to hold down or be dogmatic about, we simply don't know.

I'm not tied to the Q source theory, but I do think it's the best solution to the synoptic problem.
Click to expand...
I truly say that you present an excellent argument, and I really agree with every word you say, except that there is no copy of any such Q document.

I wist that we had a copy of the Q source, and maybe some day we will - even though that seems extremely unlikely.

That Matthew got his info from Luke is a truly realistic application, and I have to give up the ideal and jump onto the realism.

If the day ever comes that the Q document is ever discovered than I will jump for joy.


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


CrabCake said:
If you are going to make a statement like this, I think it's important, in the interest of fairness, to be honest about the fact that this is merely your opinion. The fact is that the existence of Q continues to be the dominant position among biblical scholars (both religious and secular).

I am personally not convinced, but I'll be the first to admit that mine is the minority opinion. When you say that something has been "well proven as inacccurate", you may mistakenly lead people to believe that the question has been settled among the experts, when in this case the dominant position is that there was a Q.
Click to expand...
I figure that it is seen as "my opinion" since it is my posting on an Internet forum, but since it is based on a lot of research and on the given evidence then it seems to be far more than a matter of opinion.

I do not like it this way = BUT = but there is no copy of the Q document and that is a huge distinct negativity against it.

We can see that both Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, so Matthew copying from Luke is a logical next step.

According to the Gospel of Luke he declares that he researched the subject of Jesus so that makes Luke a powerful and more credible source, see Luke 1:1-4.

It is odd that Luke puts "Q" in context while Matthew puts large portions stacked together which implies a "Q document" but again there is no such copy of "Q".
 
JP Cusick said:
I truly say that you present an excellent argument, and I really agree with every word you say, except that there is no copy of any such Q document.

I wist that we had a copy of the Q source, and maybe some day we will - even though that seems extremely unlikely.

That Matthew got his info from Luke is a truly realistic application, and I have to give up the ideal and jump onto the realism.

If the day ever comes that the Q document is ever discovered than I will jump for joy.


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



I figure that it is seen as "my opinion" since it is my posting on an Internet forum, but since it is based on a lot of research and on the given evidence then it seems to be far more than a matter of opinion.

I do not like it this way = BUT = but there is no copy of the Q document and that is a huge distinct negativity against it.

We can see that both Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, so Matthew copying from Luke is a logical next step.

According to the Gospel of Luke he declares that he researched the subject of Jesus so that makes Luke a powerful and more credible source, see Luke 1:1-4.

It is odd that Luke puts "Q" in context while Matthew puts large portions stacked together which implies a "Q document" but again there is no such copy of "Q".
Click to expand...

Luke was a historian. he would not have copied someone else's work, but Luke would have probably instead talked with Mark since they knew each other to get the information and how he had verified and discussed it.

so to say that luke copied someone else's work is wrong. Luke would have verified the source before putting in his book.

they are close because more than likely luke got marks account of what he knew and wrote it down.
he didn't just copy it.
 
JP Cusick said:
1. I am NOT truly anti-Paul just as I am not anti-Moses, but both of them gave a watered down message, and I do believe that God wanted them to give an inferior message because most people simply can not deal with the stronger message.

2. Jesus said this about Moses that Moses lowered the standard, see it here in Matthew 19:7-8

3. The Apostle Paul said that he gave "milk instead of strong meat" in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3

4. People who followed Moses did not make it to God, and those that follow Paul do not make it to Christ.

5. Another example is that Jesus said to "be ye perfect" while Paul declares that "all men fall short" so the higher standard is brought down to a lower standard.

But I still see God as orchestrating this since Paul is the latter version of Moses, in that both are just a stepping step for anyone to go on up then we first use the lower steps in order to reach the higher steps.

I totally agree.
Click to expand...

1. Do you believe Moses was a historical person?

2. Well ... Yeah, but on the other hand, Moses added more laws than Jesus did ... Especially if you think that (at least some) or the oral Law goes back that far.

3. That's just not Reading what Paul is saying, his point is that the Corinthian Church has learned the basics, because they wern't ready for the deeper Things of the gospel, and they arn't ready because they still have jealosy and so on.

4. Strangely enough that's EXACTLY what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 3.

5. You're not really doing solid exegesis here .... JEsus said, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, I mean Jesus spent his time around People who were sinners, and whome he KNEW were sinners, and told People not to judge them, Jesus taught forgivenes, that assumes constant sin,

Heres the difference, When Jesus was around there was NO Church, Jesus wasn't a Christian, he was a Jew, teaching that the Kingdom of God is here and it is comming, and establishing a way of righteousness, Paul was Christian, working in the context of a Church who was in the Kingdom, doing the Kingdom, and awaiting it, so he was dealing With internal Church politics, Church economics, Church morality, he was trying to workout a Kingdom theology, and so on and so forth.

The Same With James, in his epistle, the same With others apostles.

The Moses thing I don't quite get, explain what yout theory is, the 10 commandments were given to Moses in the narrative ....

I truly say that you present an excellent argument, and I really agree with every word you say, except that there is no copy of any such Q document.

I wist that we had a copy of the Q source, and maybe some day we will - even though that seems extremely unlikely.

That Matthew got his info from Luke is a truly realistic application, and I have to give up the ideal and jump onto the realism.

If the day ever comes that the Q document is ever discovered than I will jump for joy.
Click to expand...

Whats the argument that Matthew Got it from Luke?

The argument against that would be, Matthew is a Jewish document, Luke is not, and Luke is really Luke-Acts ... i.e. a combined work, detailing the gospel plus early Church history and is written from a Pauline perspective.

Matthew is very Jewish in nature, which doesn't necessarily make it older (there were Jewish, torah observant Christians for centuries), but might point that way, Also Luke seams to take some of the Q Material, and simplify it, (unless it's Matthew adding to it). One of the best examples of this is the Sermon on the Mount vrs the Sermon on the plain.

Lukes Version starts of With more of a Social justice proclemation that goes along With his mission statement in the synagogue, Matthew's Version starts of With the blessings that are more spiritual in nature, Matthew's Version has all sorts of extra information, but it looks like Luke took the most interesting stuff and condensed it, and then scattered some of the stuff else where, Matthew kept it together as one speach.

Now I don't know which one makes more sense as being the primary, the one that has a fuller Version, or the one that condenses and scatters.

I tend toward Q Source becuase it explains the synoptic problem the best, and answers most of the questions.

But anyway, I'd like to hear you're explination for Luke being before Matthew.
 
Last edited:
:attn1:
You "RG3" have giving a really complex posting and I am going to have to respond to it in parts as in maybe 2 part response in 2 separate posting as that is a real challenge you gave to me.

Plus this forum interrupted me by saying my comment was too long over 8,000 characters so it wants me to break up my response too.

RGacky3 said:
1. Do you believe Moses was a historical person?
Click to expand...
Yes I see no conflict with Moses being a real person of history.

Unfortunately it is still more complicated than that.

As in Deuteronomy 34:5-8 it tells of the death of Moses, and yet it is also said that Moses wrote Deuteronomy and wrote later books and Moses simply could NOT have written about his own death, and after being dead then Moses could not have written any more of the 5 books of the Bible - the Pentateuch or Torah.

The D (Deuteronomy) source dates from after the Babylonian exile, and after the rebuilding of the second Temple around 510 BCE, which undermines that part of the historical Moses.

I still believe in the person of Moses, but whether such a person spoke face-to-face with God is a bit more complicated.

RGacky3 said:
2. Well ... Yeah, but on the other hand, Moses added more laws than Jesus did ... Especially if you think that (at least some) or the oral Law goes back that far.
Click to expand...
I do agree that the oral law goes back that far, and Moses did add many laws, but then Jesus actually overruled many Moses laws - if not overruled all of Moses laws.

My problem with Moses is the same that Jesus described in that Moses gave laws based on the peoples' rebellions and as is said "the hardness of their hearts" see Matthew 19:7-8

That is not blaming Moses as Moses did as he saw right, but the people clung to the compromises of Moses instead of reaching farther after the Father God, see "I desired mercy, and not sacrifice;" in Hosea 6:6-7.

RGacky3 said:
3. That's just not Reading what Paul is saying, his point is that the Corinthian Church has learned the basics, because they wern't ready for the deeper Things of the gospel, and they arn't ready because they still have jealosy and so on.
Click to expand...
Learning the basics is fine and being "babes in Christ" is fine, but for anyone who wants to climb higher then the teaching of Paul are more "carnal" than spiritual, 1 Corinthians 3:1-3

This is not a slight to Paul, as it is just saying to step up and over Paul if one wants to get closer to Christ and to the Father God.

RGacky3 said:
JP Cusick said:
People who followed Moses did not make it to God, and those that follow Paul do not make it to Christ.
Click to expand...

4. Strangely enough that's EXACTLY what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 3.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, and that is why I still do like Paul.

In my view then there are only a few people in this world who are willing to go the extra mile and beyond, so Paul is great for the sheep, while I just do not see being a "sheep" as being either a compliment or a goal.

Being a sheep might be a great place to start, but in the end we who are able are to become Shepherds and leaders of the sheep.

RGacky3 said:
5. You're not really doing solid exegesis here .... JEsus said, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, I mean Jesus spent his time around People who were sinners, and whome he KNEW were sinners, and told People not to judge them, Jesus taught forgivenes, that assumes constant sin,
Click to expand...
That is correct, and is still correct today as it was way back then.

So it is true that I too fall short and my own flesh is weak and I too need forgiveness, but I can still see and preach the ideal and I can still reach for it too.

RGacky3 said:
Heres the difference, When Jesus was around there was NO Church, Jesus wasn't a Christian, he was a Jew, teaching that the Kingdom of God is here and it is comming, and establishing a way of righteousness, Paul was Christian, working in the context of a Church who was in the Kingdom, doing the Kingdom, and awaiting it, so he was dealing With internal Church politics, Church economics, Church morality, he was trying to workout a Kingdom theology, and so on and so forth.

The Same With James, in his epistle, the same With others apostles.
Click to expand...
That is correct, and it really makes me to wonder about that.

Since Paul and the other Apostles created a Church and yet Jesus did not create any such Church then possibly Jesus is correct and the Apostles were wrong.

Which would explain why there has never been a true Church throughout the 2,000 years.

RGacky3 said:
JP Cusick said:
But I still see God as orchestrating this since Paul is the latter version of Moses, in that both are just a stepping step for anyone to go on up then we first use the lower steps in order to reach the higher steps.
Click to expand...
The Moses thing I don't quite get, explain what yout theory is, the 10 commandments were given to Moses in the narrative ....
Click to expand...
According to the old book of Biblical Criticism it told me that the Ten Commandments probable started out as just 8 and the "D source" added the other 2, and that things like the Sabbath Day was most likely just a command to keep the Passover which was later expanded.

The point about Moses and Paul is my own Biblical Criticism based on the Bible being inspired by God, which goes as follows:

It declares in Acts 7:37 that Moses said = "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me;"

Some people claim that Jesus was the latter Moses, but Jesus was not really considered to be a "prophet" and elsewhere it declares that Jesus was the latter Adam or "last Adam" see 1 Corinthians 15:22-45.

There are other first-then-latter versions too as like John the Baptist was a later version of Elijah preparing the way for Christ, and that the NT Church was going the way of "Cain" see Jude 1:11 as in Cain and Able being the 2 sons of Adam and Jesus being the second Adam.

So it all adds up that Moses came to the scene later just as Paul came to that scene later, and both Moses and Paul essentially fulfilled the same role as each other in leading a rebellious people onto the path (not the end) of righteousness.

If that does not explain it then I am happy to dig deeper.
 
RGacky3 said:
Whats the argument that Matthew Got it from Luke?

The argument against that would be, Matthew is a Jewish document, Luke is not, and Luke is really Luke-Acts ... i.e. a combined work, detailing the gospel plus early Church history and is written from a Pauline perspective.

Matthew is very Jewish in nature, which doesn't necessarily make it older (there were Jewish, torah observant Christians for centuries), but might point that way, Also Luke seams to take some of the Q Material, and simplify it, (unless it's Matthew adding to it). One of the best examples of this is the Sermon on the Mount vrs the Sermon on the plain.

Lukes Version starts of With more of a Social justice proclemation that goes along With his mission statement in the synagogue, Matthew's Version starts of With the blessings that are more spiritual in nature, Matthew's Version has all sorts of extra information, but it looks like Luke took the most interesting stuff and condensed it, and then scattered some of the stuff else where, Matthew kept it together as one speach.

Now I don't know which one makes more sense as being the primary, the one that has a fuller Version, or the one that condenses and scatters.

I tend toward Q Source becuase it explains the synoptic problem the best, and answers most of the questions.

But anyway, I'd like to hear you're explination for Luke being before Matthew.
Click to expand...
I must confess that I give in to the contemporary scholars of today which declare Matthew in arguments like this one link HERE.

It is great to believe in a Q document but we simply do not have any such copy and so I feel that in this case that I must bend to the pressure.

I truly do wish that a Q document would turn up, but otherwise having "belief" is just not sufficient, and I do not want to be "a believer" without an actual document.

Also I really believe that you give the reasoning above in your own text that Matthew was a different version both written and given with a different perspective and that explains why Matthew would change Luke (the Q) into a different wording and delivery.

My understanding is that Luke was written in a higher form of Greek, and it is figured that since Luke was a physician then he used the more sophisticated language, while Matthew had a different audience.

There is also the idea that since the documents had to be copied by hand then Matthew was within his right to change the wording in order to suit his audience - just my opinion here - of course.

Also there is reason to believe that Luke was written in Alexandria Egypt while Matthew came from the Syria territory, so that physical distance was a much bigger deal then what we have today and that would have influenced both Luke and Matthew too - IMO.

This must be an insufficient answer to you, and in many cases the Biblical Criticism is insufficient, so Mark-Luke-Matthew appears to be the best order given the available evidence.

If you or anyone sticks with a Q source then that is fine with me.
 
JP Cusick said:
:attn1:
1. Yes I see no conflict with Moses being a real person of history.

......
Click to expand...


ok ... Lets get into it :) (it's refreshing to have a conversation like this.

1. Ok so if I understand, sure there was a historical Moses, but he was not (as far as we can defend historically) the Author of the books of Moses (at least not the vast majority of them), which were based on other Sources, I have more or less the same position, although I have no problem beleiving some of the material, for example some of the J Source and Some of the E Source could have origionated that far back.

2. See heres' my issue, if you're saying Moses added laws, which laws? which part of the mosaic Law was Moses responsible for directly? Or was it the oral Law? I don't think the Oral Law (as preserved in the mishnah) goes back nearly as far as Moses.

Also when did Jesus overrule Moses' Law? If anything he took Moses' Law and made it more stringent, and the purity laws he opposed were not mosaic Law, but oral Law. What Your quoting in Matthew 19 is not talking about some oral Law that Moses weakened, he's comparing the marriage arrangement in the Garden of eden to the mosiac provision for divorce.

It's the same argumetn I would use as to why Israel had slavery, or a monarchy, Monarchy wasn't the preffered form of government, but the People wnated it, slavery was allowed, but heavily regulated, as was land ownership, but none of these were the origional intent.

I think we have to not compare Apples and Oranges here, the prophets we're opposing primarily social injustice and idolatry (very often they go hand in hand as we see in King Solomon for example), very often when opposing social injustice the argumetn is given, that holiness doesn't come from ritual sacrifice, but from righteousness, that's the argument Hosea is making, NOT that the mosaic Law is invalid or should not be kept, hell, the social justice motif COMES FROM the mosaic Law.

3. I don't know which Paul you're talking about, but deep and spiritual concepts of "love," being the spiritual man as opposed to a man of the flesh, prayer, and so on are all over the Place in Paul, bringing the light into the world and so on, I mean he's matched only by the Johanian literature in that regard.

I mean if you go directly TO Jesus, you don't really get much, you have escatology and ethics, and a narrative. You can go to James but James is basically still, just ethics.

The one who used the "sheep" metaphor was not Paul, but Jesus, I think you're seriously missreading Paul here. What you may be doing is Reading all the internal Church disputes and internal Church issues as the context in which to read the theology, you can't do that, they are 2 different Things.

It was Jesus' theology which was that we are to become as sheep, as little children, and the greatest will become the lowest and so on ... Paul was much more individualistic, talking about the internal man of the heart, and training yourself and so on.

NT Wright has just done a HUGE work on Paul (I've only read the Shorter Version), you should look into it.

I used to be one of those who like you kind of shyed away from Paul and stuck more to the Gospels, Acts, James and Revelation, seeing the Pauline letters as kind of .... well, too institutionalized, Churchy, and "don't do this, do that"-y, but you gotta get past that and get deep into the theology, because you're missing out if you don't. I still love the pure ethical, social, and apocalyptic Messages of the gospels, and James and so on, but you need Paul to fill in the gaps.

As far as the Church, there's a Book by Craig Evans called Jesus to the Church which talks about that, about whether or not Jesus anticipated a Church and how it happened, I don't think Jesus did, but he did anticipate a renewal of Israel, through himself and his apostles, and the early Church was basically trying to do that, untill it became a universal affair.

4. Jesus was MOST DEFINATELY considered a prophet ... in his life time especially, Being called the Second Adam is Pauls theology. And the acts account almost definately refers to Jesus, it quotes Psalms 110:1 ... which is the scripture most cited and quoted in the NT and always refers to Jesus, and it talks about the killing of the prophets, which is a Direct referance to the crucifixion.

But I agree, Jesus is the New Adam, but thats in teh sense of Pauls Atonement theology, he's Moses in his messianic role to the Jews, the 2 metaphores are used for different Things.

It's interesting arguments you have hear, I don't agree With most of it, but hey, at least it's well thought through and researched, and I appreciate that.

I must confess that I give in to the contemporary scholars of today which declare Matthew in arguments like this one link HERE.

It is great to believe in a Q document but we simply do not have any such copy and so I feel that in this case that I must bend to the pressure.

I truly do wish that a Q document would turn up, but otherwise having "belief" is just not sufficient, and I do not want to be "a believer" without an actual document.

Also I really believe that you give the reasoning above in your own text that Matthew was a different version both written and given with a different perspective and that explains why Matthew would change Luke (the Q) into a different wording and delivery.

My understanding is that Luke was written in a higher form of Greek, and it is figured that since Luke was a physician then he used the more sophisticated language, while Matthew had a different audience.

There is also the idea that since the documents had to be copied by hand then Matthew was within his right to change the wording in order to suit his audience - just my opinion here - of course.

Also there is reason to believe that Luke was written in Alexandria Egypt while Matthew came from the Syria territory, so that physical distance was a much bigger deal then what we have today and that would have influenced both Luke and Matthew too - IMO.

This must be an insufficient answer to you, and in many cases the Biblical Criticism is insufficient, so Mark-Luke-Matthew appears to be the best order given the available evidence.

If you or anyone sticks with a Q source then that is fine with me.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I mean we dont' have copies of seperate J, E, P or D Sources for the OT and the Torah either, but it's reasonable to believe in them.

I'm open to Mark -Luke/Matthew, but my question is why do you think Luke weas written first? I mean there are theories out there (I don't read Aramaic or Hebrew so I don't know how credible they are), that Matthew was origionally Aramaic or Hebrew.
 
ludin said:
Luke was a historian. he would not have copied someone else's work, but Luke would have probably instead talked with Mark since they knew each other to get the information and how he had verified and discussed it.

so to say that luke copied someone else's work is wrong. Luke would have verified the source before putting in his book.

they are close because more than likely luke got marks account of what he knew and wrote it down.
he didn't just copy it.
Click to expand...

Luke apparently use Josephus' Antiquities as a source. This would put his writing after 95 C.E. Mark's writings was probably in the very early 70's. Matthew was probably between the 80's and 90's.
 
RAMOSS said:
Luke apparently use Josephus' Antiquities as a source. This would put his writing after 95 C.E. Mark's writings was probably in the very early 70's. Matthew was probably between the 80's and 90's.
Click to expand...

Possibly i think John was the latest at 90's and the others were much ealier.

So as it stands. Matthew was written by the dsiciple matthew also known as levi. so he had eye witness experience to the event or to the events while he was around.
Luke was a companion of paul who knew the disciples so he would have been able to get first hand information from them.
John again was the disciple of Christ so knew Christ personally.

Mark was companions to both Paul and Peter who was a disciple of Christ.

so the authors of the 4 gospels either knew Christ personally or were associated of his disciples in some way.

while their writings have different events they also have the same events depending on who was there.
however the overall theme of the books and the 4 gospels are consistent enough.
 
RGacky3 said:
ok ... Lets get into it :) (it's refreshing to have a conversation like this.

1. Ok so if I understand, sure there was a historical Moses, but he was not (as far as we can defend historically) the Author of the books of Moses (at least not the vast majority of them), which were based on other Sources, I have more or less the same position, although I have no problem beleiving some of the material, for example some of the J Source and Some of the E Source could have origionated that far back.

2. See heres' my issue, if you're saying Moses added laws, which laws? which part of the mosaic Law was Moses responsible for directly? Or was it the oral Law? I don't think the Oral Law (as preserved in the mishnah) goes back nearly as far as Moses.

Also when did Jesus overrule Moses' Law? If anything he took Moses' Law and made it more stringent, and the purity laws he opposed were not mosaic Law, but oral Law. What Your quoting in Matthew 19 is not talking about some oral Law that Moses weakened, he's comparing the marriage arrangement in the Garden of eden to the mosiac provision for divorce.

It's the same argumetn I would use as to why Israel had slavery, or a monarchy, Monarchy wasn't the preffered form of government, but the People wnated it, slavery was allowed, but heavily regulated, as was land ownership, but none of these were the origional intent.

I think we have to not compare Apples and Oranges here, the prophets we're opposing primarily social injustice and idolatry (very often they go hand in hand as we see in King Solomon for example), very often when opposing social injustice the argumetn is given, that holiness doesn't come from ritual sacrifice, but from righteousness, that's the argument Hosea is making, NOT that the mosaic Law is invalid or should not be kept, hell, the social justice motif COMES FROM the mosaic Law.

3. I don't know which Paul you're talking about, but deep and spiritual concepts of "love," being the spiritual man as opposed to a man of the flesh, prayer, and so on are all over the Place in Paul, bringing the light into the world and so on, I mean he's matched only by the Johanian literature in that regard.

I mean if you go directly TO Jesus, you don't really get much, you have escatology and ethics, and a narrative. You can go to James but James is basically still, just ethics.

The one who used the "sheep" metaphor was not Paul, but Jesus, I think you're seriously missreading Paul here. What you may be doing is Reading all the internal Church disputes and internal Church issues as the context in which to read the theology, you can't do that, they are 2 different Things.

It was Jesus' theology which was that we are to become as sheep, as little children, and the greatest will become the lowest and so on ... Paul was much more individualistic, talking about the internal man of the heart, and training yourself and so on.

NT Wright has just done a HUGE work on Paul (I've only read the Shorter Version), you should look into it.

I used to be one of those who like you kind of shyed away from Paul and stuck more to the Gospels, Acts, James and Revelation, seeing the Pauline letters as kind of .... well, too institutionalized, Churchy, and "don't do this, do that"-y, but you gotta get past that and get deep into the theology, because you're missing out if you don't. I still love the pure ethical, social, and apocalyptic Messages of the gospels, and James and so on, but you need Paul to fill in the gaps.

As far as the Church, there's a Book by Craig Evans called Jesus to the Church which talks about that, about whether or not Jesus anticipated a Church and how it happened, I don't think Jesus did, but he did anticipate a renewal of Israel, through himself and his apostles, and the early Church was basically trying to do that, untill it became a universal affair.

4. Jesus was MOST DEFINATELY considered a prophet ... in his life time especially, Being called the Second Adam is Pauls theology. And the acts account almost definately refers to Jesus, it quotes Psalms 110:1 ... which is the scripture most cited and quoted in the NT and always refers to Jesus, and it talks about the killing of the prophets, which is a Direct referance to the crucifixion.

But I agree, Jesus is the New Adam, but thats in teh sense of Pauls Atonement theology, he's Moses in his messianic role to the Jews, the 2 metaphores are used for different Things.

It's interesting arguments you have hear, I don't agree With most of it, but hey, at least it's well thought through and researched, and I appreciate that.



Fair enough, I mean we dont' have copies of seperate J, E, P or D Sources for the OT and the Torah either, but it's reasonable to believe in them.

I'm open to Mark -Luke/Matthew, but my question is why do you think Luke weas written first? I mean there are theories out there (I don't read Aramaic or Hebrew so I don't know how credible they are), that Matthew was origionally Aramaic or Hebrew.
Click to expand...
I gave a long detailed response to this and the forum lost the posting out into cyberspace.

:2bigcry:

Now I have to go out soon and can not redo it today, so below is the short version.

The link I intended to give you - the Mosaic Laws Judaism 101

Jesus paid the punishment, so the laws are still real and we reap whatever we sow in this life but God no longer has any punishment as Jesus paid the price in full.
 
ludin said:
Possibly i think John was the latest at 90's and the others were much ealier.

So as it stands. Matthew was written by the dsiciple matthew also known as levi. so he had eye witness experience to the event or to the events while he was around.
Luke was a companion of paul who knew the disciples so he would have been able to get first hand information from them.
John again was the disciple of Christ so knew Christ personally.

Mark was companions to both Paul and Peter who was a disciple of Christ.

so the authors of the 4 gospels either knew Christ personally or were associated of his disciples in some way.

while their writings have different events they also have the same events depending on who was there.
however the overall theme of the books and the 4 gospels are consistent enough.
Click to expand...


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.

There is no evidence that the John who wrote the Gospel of John knew Jesus directly. That is a high conservative theological view, and most biblical scholars disagree.

The idea the Matthew was the apostle came from the declaration that 'Matthew wrote to the Jews in their own language', however, the Gospel of Matthew that currently is in the Bible was composed in Greek, so it can not have been referring to that document.
 
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...

No matthew was a tax collector therefore a learned man therefore he probably knew greek fairly well.

There is no evidence that the John who wrote the Gospel of John knew Jesus directly. That is a high conservative theological view, and most biblical scholars disagree.
Click to expand...
you can believe what you want i will believe the cannon that it was john the beloved. there is little evidence to the contrary and in fact it has been upheld for thousands of years that John the beloved disciple is the person that wrote the Gospel.

The idea the Matthew was the apostle came from the declaration that 'Matthew wrote to the Jews in their own language', however, the Gospel of Matthew that currently is in the Bible was composed in Greek, so it can not have been referring to that document.
Click to expand...

Hebrew Matthew
 
RGacky3 said:
1. Ok so if I understand, sure there was a historical Moses, but he was not (as far as we can defend historically) the Author of the books of Moses (at least not the vast majority of them), which were based on other Sources, I have more or less the same position, although I have no problem beleiving some of the material, for example some of the J Source and Some of the E Source could have origionated that far back.
Click to expand...
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.

RGacky3 said:
2. See heres' my issue, if you're saying Moses added laws, which laws? which part of the mosaic Law was Moses responsible for directly? Or was it the oral Law? I don't think the Oral Law (as preserved in the mishnah) goes back nearly as far as Moses.
Click to expand...
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.

RGacky3 said:
Also when did Jesus overrule Moses' Law? If anything he took Moses' Law and made it more stringent, and the purity laws he opposed were not mosaic Law, but oral Law. What Your quoting in Matthew 19 is not talking about some oral Law that Moses weakened, he's comparing the marriage arrangement in the Garden of eden to the mosiac provision for divorce.
Click to expand...
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

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.

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.

RGacky3 said:
It's the same argumetn I would use as to why Israel had slavery, or a monarchy, Monarchy wasn't the preffered form of government, but the People wnated it, slavery was allowed, but heavily regulated, as was land ownership, but none of these were the origional intent.

I think we have to not compare Apples and Oranges here, the prophets we're opposing primarily social injustice and idolatry (very often they go hand in hand as we see in King Solomon for example), very often when opposing social injustice the argumetn is given, that holiness doesn't come from ritual sacrifice, but from righteousness, that's the argument Hosea is making, NOT that the mosaic Law is invalid or should not be kept, hell, the social justice motif COMES FROM the mosaic Law.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you say here.

RGacky3 said:
I'm open to Mark -Luke/Matthew, but my question is why do you think Luke weas written first? I mean there are theories out there (I don't read Aramaic or Hebrew so I don't know how credible they are), that Matthew was origionally Aramaic or Hebrew.
Click to expand...
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
 
ludin said:
No matthew was a tax collector therefore a learned man therefore he probably knew greek fairly well.


you can believe what you want i will believe the cannon that it was john the beloved. there is little evidence to the contrary and in fact it has been upheld for thousands of years that John the beloved disciple is the person that wrote the Gospel.



Hebrew Matthew
Click to expand...

Like I said, there are some very conservative claims.. yet, those claims from from the Fringe. I bet that you will find that the owner of that web site subscribes specifically to 'biblical inerrancy', which as far as I can see is immune to facts.

Now, from here

It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience
Click to expand...
 
RAMOSS said:
Like I said, there are some very conservative claims.. yet, those claims from from the Fringe. I bet that you will find that the owner of that web site subscribes specifically to 'biblical inerrancy', which as far as I can see is immune to facts.

Now, from here
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...


I find it very ironic that you point to CARM when it comes to the issue of 'main stream'. They are hardly main stream./
 
RGacky3 said:
3. I don't know which Paul you're talking about, but deep and spiritual concepts of "love," being the spiritual man as opposed to a man of the flesh, prayer, and so on are all over the Place in Paul, bringing the light into the world and so on, I mean he's matched only by the Johanian literature in that regard.

I mean if you go directly TO Jesus, you don't really get much, you have escatology and ethics, and a narrative. You can go to James but James is basically still, just ethics.
Click to expand...
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.
 
JP Cusick said:
I did not compare myself with Einstein as I simply said that the basic concept of relativity can be found in the Bible, but then Einstein took that to extremely farther places then what I could do.

Einstein told is accurately when he declared - "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So right there Einstein told us about that one source of his information.
Click to expand...

This quote is often used by those of us on religious side of the conversation as a sort of proof that logic and reason are not limited to science, which I support as a fundamental concept about faith.

However unlike the great encyclical on Faith and Reason, which linked the two as human requirements, Einstein is making a point of seperation which I believe to be a fair one. Not that religion and science come together but that they are two functionally seperate roads. Here is some addtional text which I think add a bit more to the famous quote and it is out of article from a source that is on the science side of the discussion:

. . . Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
Click to expand...
Einstein Quote About Religion and Science Was Wrong, Misinterpreted | New Republic

In this light if one looks at the situation with Galileo and concludes his unfair punishment was strictly a "science vs. biblical interpretation", (which it most certainly was not) I think it is more than fair to judge the then Pope harshly for his treatment of Galileo. But when you add in the personal nature of the Pope's approach no doubt based on a hubris Galileo did not share with the creator of the theory, Copernicus, it makes judgement of the then Pope open to even more criticism.


But as a reference point and I think a relevancy to this thread's main thrust, the truth is revealed in a simple sentence written at the time by the great Cardinal Ballarmine, no doubt the leader among the College of Cardinals which puts it all in the proper perspective. Here I think you see the actual position of the Church on this science vs. Faith question as it related to Biblical interpretation, and keep in mind that at the time Copernicus' Theory had not and could not be proven.

I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
gilbertc1908 said:
... Einstein is making a point of seperation which I believe to be a fair one. Not that religion and science come together but that they are two functionally seperate roads. Here is some addtional text which I think add a bit more to the famous quote and it is out of article from a source that is on the science side of the discussion:

Einstein Quote About Religion and Science Was Wrong, Misinterpreted | New Republic
Click to expand...
I know that Einstein had second thoughts and Einstein tried to change some of his earlier declarations about God in science, but I truly find that Einstein was really just resisting the huge outside pressure coming at him from mainstream Christianity who were distorting his words into a Christian doctrine.

I myself am doing that same thing but I say that I am doing it accurately. ;)

A very important distinction of mine is that Einstein was correct in his saying = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." And it does not matter if he changed his belief later as he got it right in the first place even if later he got it wrong in the second place.

My point is NOT to make Einstein into some kind of prophet or holy man as Einstein was wrong about many things, and I am just saying that he got a few things about God correctly as like that one sentence quote was true even if Einstein himself was wrong in how he interpreted his own words.

The words = Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - are true and accurate even if it were said by the Easter bunny or by some drunken bum laying in a gutter, as I am not promoting Einstein.

gilbertc1908 said:
But as a reference point and I think a relevancy to this thread's main thrust, the truth is revealed in a simple sentence written at the time by the great Cardinal Ballarmine, no doubt the leader among the College of Cardinals which puts it all in the proper perspective. Here I think you see the actual position of the Church on this science vs. Faith question as it related to Biblical interpretation, and keep in mind that at the time Copernicus' Theory had not and could not be proven.

I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.
Click to expand...
In my view that statement from a Catholic Cardinal is a real show of enlightenment and cheers to him.

I say that what the Cardinal said still holds true as like both "Evolution" and the "Big Bang" are both big scientific proofs of a real Creator God and everyone needs to embrace that reality, and those scientific truths also conform with the words of the Bible.

That is taking "Biblical Criticism" way far out of its restrictive shell - and I like that - as we need to go wherever it takes us.


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

JP Cusick said:
... the JEDP sources.
Click to expand...

The first five (5) books of the Bible had what is referred to as four (4) different writers or authors, which are referred to as J, E, P, D.

They call it a theory but the evidence is far more than theory.

Link here = Four-Source Theory of the Torah

Without using this info then nobody can properly understand the elder testament (the "Old Testament"), and that is the basis for the New (newer) Testament.
 
JP Cusick said:
I know that Einstein had second thoughts and Einstein tried to change some of his earlier declarations about God in science, but I truly find that Einstein was really just resisting the huge outside pressure coming at him from mainstream Christianity who were distorting his words into a Christian doctrine.

I myself am doing that same thing but I say that I am doing it accurately. ;)

A very important distinction of mine is that Einstein was correct in his saying = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." And it does not matter if he changed his belief later as he got it right in the first place even if later he got it wrong in the second place.

My point is NOT to make Einstein into some kind of prophet or holy man as Einstein was wrong about many things, and I am just saying that he got a few things about God correctly as like that one sentence quote was true even if Einstein himself was wrong in how he interpreted his own words.

The words = Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - are true and accurate even if it were said by the Easter bunny or by some drunken bum laying in a gutter, as I am not promoting Einstein.

We agree basically.


JP Cusick said:
In my view that statement from a Catholic Cardinal is a real show of enlightenment and cheers to him.

I say that what the Cardinal said still holds true as like both "Evolution" and the "Big Bang" are both big scientific proofs of a real Creator God and everyone needs to embrace that reality, and those scientific truths also conform with the words of the Bible.

That is taking "Biblical Criticism" way far out of its restrictive shell - and I like that - as we need to go wherever it takes us.
Click to expand...

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

If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom