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.
Yeah...and? Of course there are going to be some apologetics in my responses. I am a believer in something that you don't believe in. I am not going to try to persuade you or anyone else of it, and I am most certainly not going to get into a tedious argument over this or that bit of scripture and when it was written and by whom and why. I've just completed a four-year theological course, and year two was the New Testament. I'm a bit rusty on the particulars. There are lots of beliefs and theories about those writings, and some may agree with what you say and some may not.
The difference between us in regard to is that you, naturally, are going to seek points that support your argument, and I don't give a rat's ass beyond general interest. It doesn't matter that much.
We are approaching this thing from two completely different directions. Even above where you refer to my "mental buy-in" it becomes apparent that you are still trying to yank my perspective over to yours. It's NOT mental. It's NOT emotional. It is spiritual, and spirituality makes no frikken sense on a logical level.
It's not false reasoning, anymore than your reasoning is. That's what it appears you're not getting. It's not really about reasoning, although we can't avoid it totally because we are beings that like to reason and actually think that we CAN reason things out. That's why we have that "Scripture, Tradition, AND REASON" thing that allows us damn liberal theists to override ancient scriptures written for a different audience. If everything were only about reasoning, there would be no spirituality, no faith at all--which I suspect would suit you just fine, but the reality is that a good portion of humanity does not limit themselves to that which they can reason out.
You're a really bad judge of character there, Transponder, because that ain't me. Makes one wonder in what other areas your judgment is flawed.
Let me ask you something--and it's not a setup or anything I intend to address in response. I am genuinely curious.
Do you ever have any sense whatsoever of anything that cannot be drilled down to reason? Any feelings of coincidence, of intuition, of sixth sense, of connection to other beings, human or otherwise, that you are unsure is not based on some chemical recipe, even though it may not yet have been identified and defined?
It does not seem to me that you do. This is not a judgment or a criticism, but an observation.
A lovely post. Enjoyed it. I am a very poor judge of character, but in your case I wasn't judging character but being disarmingly polite while I apologeticaly severed your jugular.
I do indeed, have a "sense whatsoever of anything that cannot be drilled down to reason? Any feelings of coincidence, of intuition, of sixth sense, of connection to other beings, human or otherwise, that you are unsure is not based on some chemical recipe, even though it may not yet have been identified and defined" but reason trumps them all, because we are very prone to misinterpret and misunderstand all thiose things, what causes them, what they are and what they signify. Reason (and I mean logical sound reasoning, not "common sense" which is common but not always sense by any means) exists and is designed to correct or at least not be misled by those things.
Bottom line, I am aware of those things and even think them significant, but I do not jump to conclusions about them. Theism I regret to say also does not jump to conclusions about them; it brings the conclusions along and jams the bloody feelings of coincidence, of intuition, of sixth sense, of connection to other beings, human or otherwise, into them any way they can.
I would observe that the whole thing begins with an assumption that Matthew was written in Hebrew, undoubtedly because they accept that it was written by an eyewitness who was a disciple of Jesus, although Aramaic would be as likely as Hebrew or more so. The references are from centuries later and there is apparently no recognition of the serious mistakes Matthew makes that a Jew with the slightest acquaintance with the OT writings (their Pentateuch/Torah) could not have made.
Thus it seems to me that the article is without credibility or value. I retain the view that the 2 references in Matthew to 'Church' represented the Greek christian church of his time which was quite extensive and indeed organized, and was already seeking to establish the authority of its head as derived from the appointing by Jesus of Simon Peter, in an episode not found in the other synoptics.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-19-2017 at 04:16 PM..
I would observe that the whole thing begins with an assumption that Matthew was written in Hebrew, undoubtedly because they accept that it was written by an eyewitness who was a disciple of Jesus, although Aramaic would be as likely as Hebrew or more so. The references are from centuries later and there is apparently no recognition of the serious mistakes Matthew makes that a Jew with the slightest acquaintance with the OT writings (their Pentateuch/Torah) could not have made.
Thus it seems to me that the article is without credibility or value. I retain the view that the 2 references in Matthew to 'Church' represented the Greek christian church of his time which was quite extensive and indeed organized, and was already seeking to establish the authority of its head as derived from the appointing by Jesus of Simon Peter, in an episode not found in the other synoptics.
So then we just discount all the historians who said it existed in their day, then? It's nothing to me one way or the other, I knew 30 years ago it was all originally in Hebrew because you can run the principles from Genesis to Revelation, some of which are only visible WITH the Hebrew language, but it is a point that people should consider, as it shows exactly how much the "church" was Helenized. Peace
Really? So a small "organized church" could not hold meetings in a home? Since when? In many parts of the world they do exactly that even today.
It should be fairly clear in looking at Acts and other references that the earliest Christians attended synagogue (or Temple) on the Jewish Sabbath and met at homes for the community meal after sunset. Think about Paul speaking at a meeting until midnight. Do you think he started at 10 am on Sunday? "Organization" is a matter of degree, and not necessarily formal structure. Leaders were recognized as such and respect was assumed for all.
Think about Paul speaking at a meeting until midnight. Do you think he started at 10 am on Sunday?
I have no idea what time he started speaking, and I really don't think it's at all important with respect to how the word "organization" is defined. I will say, though, that I've attended church meetings that seemed to last about that long.
Quote:
"Organization" is a matter of degree, and not necessarily formal structure.
An organization a group of persons organized for some end or work. I'm curious as to what it is about the word "organization" that is such a turn off for you.
Quote:
Leaders were recognized as such and respect was assumed for all.
I've never stated anything other than this. As a matter of fact, I think that's an excellent way of putting it.
So then we just discount all the historians who said it existed in their day, then? It's nothing to me one way or the other, I knew 30 years ago it was all originally in Hebrew because you can run the principles from Genesis to Revelation, some of which are only visible WITH the Hebrew language, but it is a point that people should consider, as it shows exactly how much the "church" was Helenized. Peace
If their claims don't seem to fit with the facts, we should indeed question it rather than just accept what they say. If some sound evidence can be produced for a Hebrew Matthew resembling the gospel we have now of at least 2nd c date, I'll accept it.
I'm afraid I am not persuaded by reference to al the 'principles from genesis to Revelation. Sure, Matthew referenced the OT scriptures for his prophecies, but he got them wrong. That's what puts him beyond being a Hebrew as far as the facts go.
I do agree at least that it is part of the evolution of Christianity from Hebrew beginnings to Roman state cult. But it is a good way along that process, not at the start.
The 7 churches Jesus spoke to in Revelation were organized.
I am not disputing that the apostles and their followers created a hierarchical organization against the wishes of Jesus himself because they were flawed human beings desirous of power and control over their followers. That desire has been the dominant motive of church organization for millennia.
I am not disputing that the apostles and their followers created a hierarchical organization against the wishes of Jesus himself because they were flawed human beings desirous of power and control over their followers. That desire has been the dominant motive of church organization for millennia.
A professional "clergy" was developing by the end of the first century.
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.
A lovely post. Enjoyed it. I am a very poor judge of character, but in your case I wasn't judging character but being disarmingly polite while I apologeticaly severed your jugular.
