Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, the writer of John, a book written at LEAST 60 years AFTER the time of Jesus, was able to remember that Jesus said over 3,000 consecutive words as per John chapter 5. That's amazing. Either someone was making up **** or they are really playing lots of people for fools and doing a damn good job.
Playing Devil's Advocate for a second (funny choice of words, huh?), if Matthew actually existed, he was a tax-collector. That being the case, I would assume he would have had to been able to read and write.
That being said, Matthew is thought to have been written around 90-100 CE. This is probably out of his age range, huh? 92% of Mark's Gospel is contained in Matthew. The Virgin Birth and the geneology did not appear in the original versions of Matthew. Additionally, it was an anonymous writing until about 150 CE, when it was then attributed to Matthew. According to studies, the writers of Matthew corrected many errors Mark made concerning the Jewish ways of life. Lastly, Matthew, as well as Mark, relied heavily on the "Q" document (disclaimer: "Q" has never been proven to actually exist. It is a hypothesis only.)
"The Virgin Birth and the geneology did not appear in the original versions of Matthew."
Really? I'd never heard that. I would be very grateful if you could provide some support for that. I knew that the 'adulterous woman' episode is considered a later addition as is the resurrection accounts added to Mark, but I didn't know about this one.
I have read quite a bit on the 'Synoptic problem' and (said he striking a pose) I was doing redaction criticism before I even knew what it was. But what surprises me is the lack of any conclusions drawn from the results of redaction criticism.
They know that the synoptics shared material but I sense a distinct reluctance to note that the wording they use is obviously derived from a common original.
They know that some of the gospel - writers added material not found in the others, and they dicker about 'Q' or 'Oral traditions'. But I note a distinct reluctance to say plainly that something added, if too major to be overlooked (like the shekel - swallowing fish), has to be put down as unreliable.
I tried to work out a date for Mark based on the mention of Simon of Cyrene's sons, who were clearly known to Mark's readers, even if Simon wasn't. And I got to 50 A.D. (+/-20 years). Which would put Mark in the time of Jesus as an eyewitness and also in the time of Paul as someone who never even saw Jesus. Supposed dates do not assist. It is the content of the gospels that raise the doubts. Not supposed dating; not accuracy of translation or transmission.
Deuteronomy will tell ya. Homosexuality is an "abomination to YHVH". Not rocket science. However we are still to love them, just hate the action, NOT the person.
you positive about that?
how do you know that?
i'm not disputing (yet) .... just curious.
We can only say that Matthew and Mark tranlsate some Aramaic into greek. If the gospels had been written in Aramaic, no translation would have been neccessary. However, that is not to say that there could not have been an Aramaic original from which they worked, but then would have expected them to tranlate this into greek in varying ways. The close agreement between some of their wording (where it is parallell text) would indicate that they had the same original greek text to work from, But, again that could have been translated from an Aramaic original.
In that respect it is noted that Mark's Greek is considered a bit rough. that would seem to guarantee that he couldn't have taken his material from a greek text that was any better. Matthew and Mark, however, are considered to write good greek.
"The Virgin Birth and the geneology did not appear in the original versions of Matthew."
Really? I'd never heard that. I would be very grateful if you could provide some support for that. I knew that the 'adulterous woman' episode is considered a later addition as is the resurrection accounts added to Mark, but I didn't know about this one.
Arequipa,
Yeah, I hadn't heard that piece before either. Apparently, the earliest known "Matthew" was written by the first Jewish Christians also known as the Ebionites. This first Matthew is sometimes called "The Gospel of the Ebionites" and also "Gospel of the Hebrews". The earliest biblical scholars (including Jerome himself) called it "Matthaei Authenticum".
We can only say that Matthew and Mark tranlsate some Aramaic into greek. If the gospels had been written in Aramaic, no translation would have been neccessary. However, that is not to say that there could not have been an Aramaic original from which they worked, but then would have expected them to tranlate this into greek in varying ways. The close agreement between some of their wording (where it is parallell text) would indicate that they had the same original greek text to work from, But, again that could have been translated from an Aramaic original.
In that respect it is noted that Mark's Greek is considered a bit rough. that would seem to guarantee that he couldn't have taken his material from a greek text that was any better. Matthew and Mark, however, are considered to write good greek.
i've always assumed that the original was written in aramaic and i'm pretty sure i'm correct.
why do you say that if the original had been written in aramaic "no translation would have been necessary"?
so, anyway, if the original was written in aramaic and one wants to truly understand the bible, why would knowing greek and/or hebrew be relevant.
learn aramaic.
i've read some passages from the bible in the original aramaic and the meaning was not just a bit different but radically so.
the king james version of this particular passage was actually an inversion of the meaning.
it was fascinating.
Deuteronomy will tell ya. Homosexuality is an "abomination to YHVH". Not rocket science. However we are still to love them, just hate the action, NOT the person.
Deuteronomy? You mean Deut 23:17? You must be reading the KJV where the word "sodomite" was used incorrectly by the KJV translators. Most modern English versions now correctly translate the Hebrew word "qadesh" to "male temple prostitute".
Not rocket science, but it does take a bit of time to research.
So when you find some modern day male temple prostitutes worshipping Canaanite or Roman fertility gods, you go right ahead and "love" them while you are hating their "actions."
Sheesh, there were no such thing as Jewish Christians (a virtual oxymorn) The word "christian" was NEVER used until after Antioch, and the Talmadim NEVER referred to themselves as xtians, it was the Romans that called them that just as a black person would be called the "N" word. It was NOT a good thing. They were Netzarim Jews or "Followers of the Way", but NOT christians..........Also complete manuscripts have been found of Mattityahu's (Matthew) as well as the scripture from Hebrews in Hebrew (not even Aramaic). No doubt more will come in time seeing as how it is YHVH's chosen language of HIS people
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
