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 -we're a tedious bunch. For Interesting Times, you need religions. Or, at least, Dogmas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
MQ no points, though dammit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
same
Steady on, you'll have me believing in Universal Justice!
Because, although she makes your month by saying just what you wanted to hear, our gracious Queen's reasoning is terminally flawed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
You ARE deeply bought into your own theory, of course, with no wiggle room. That's not a criticism, it's Transponderism, we understand that, and we wouldn't want you any other way. That's also bleedin' obvious (I guess yours is the Brit spelling.)
I don't believe anyone recorded Jesus word-for-word, and I've no doubt people slipped in what they needed to for their own agendas.
But neither do I think a bunch of people sat around a fire at midnight dreaming up some nefarious plot to elevate a local zealot to something more than he was. This guy influenced enough people that they completely changed their lives because of his teachings, the difference in what he said from what is our nature, and that's all that matters in the end.
I find your condescension entertaining, I truly do, but maybe if you realized you were talking to people who despite their intelligence have a sense of something beyond the bleedin' obvious, you might be less frustrated. You don't have to believe anything yourself, but accept the possibility that might be missing something that other people see, and it's not just because we are all morons.
You are making the standard errors of apologist thinking, and I'm afraid that indicates your mental Buy -in rather than mine.
You concession than there was some fiddling and slippage here and there is just a way of shrugging the whole thing off.
Evidence counts and the way the evidence clearly points - and if it doesn't somebody has yet to show where - that should count for something and just dismissing it as an Ism of mine is - as I say - just one of the false reasonings of theist thinking.
You final strawman, though quite amusing, is also not to be taken too seriously. It quite overlooks the actual argument. Of course you may not be familiar with what my argument is, but that surely indicates a lot of selective reading on your part, and really, if you don't know the argument, how can you think up invented scenarios to explain it away?
Dear lady, nobody denies you are sweetness and light itself, but I regret to say that your apologetic reasoning is as intellectually dishonest as that of the most implacable Genesis - literalist.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-18-2017 at 08:32 AM..
Reason: There seems to be a Universal curse on my thyping
That might have been awkward. The term synagogue of course appears in the gospels, so if Jesus had used it why change it?
Because the meaning is different. A Synagogue is a temple like a church in that it is a place of religious assembly (though it is not itself supposed ti be a Holy building) but the way the term is used by Matthew implies a different sect of Judaism, if not a different religion From Judaism.
No, the word church was added in place of it, probably by Constantine, once the split between Jews and the newly formed sect of Jewish converts calling themselves Christians at Antioch, came to complete fruition, so as to form another sect altogether and separate themselves completely from their roots. Unfortunately, some of the fish jumped out of the net and returned unto the sea. But it's ok, He promises to raise up all those that died in the sea too, doesn't He? Peace
συναγωγή synagōgḗ, soon-ag-o-gay'; from (the reduplicated form of) G4863; an assemblage of persons; specially, a Jewish "synagogue" (the meeting or the place); by analogy, a Christian church:—assembly, congregation, synagogue.
But usn't the argument about Matthew's use of the word "Church" in the Greek, meaning something more than a Christian synagogue?
Strong gives a lot iof readings:
Ekklesia
a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
the assembly of the Israelites
any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
in a Christian sense
an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven.
But the way Matthew uses Ekklesia on two occasions, reads more like the Christian sense, rather than just a particular kind of Synagogue. Of course it could apply to just the people following one faith in just the one building, but it sounds like it refers to the faith -group rather than just the building and those in it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-18-2017 at 05:09 PM..
But usn't the argument about Matthew's use of the word "Church" in the Greek, meaning something more than a Christian synagogue?
Strong gives a lot iof readings:
Ekklesia
a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
the assembly of the Israelites
any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
in a Christian sense
an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven.
But the way Matthew uses Ekklesia on two occasions, reads more like the Christian sense, rather than just a particular kind of Synagogue. Of course it could apply to just the people following one faith in just the one building, but it sounds like it refers to the faith -group rather than just the building and those in it.
Did you know there is an extant copy of Matthew written in Hebrew and there is every reason to believe that ALL the letters were at one time being circulated in Hebrew, if not written in it to begin with? Therefore Matt. would have said, "synagogue", since until the split, they were all meeting together in synagogues and there was no such thing as a church, unless you count the pagan temples at that time. Peace
Did you know there is an extant copy of Matthew written in Hebrew and there is every reason to believe that ALL the letters were at one time being circulated in Hebrew, if not written in it to begin with? Therefore Matt. would have said, "synagogue", since until the split, they were all meeting together in synagogues and there was no such thing as a church, unless you count the pagan temples at that time. Peace
I certainly did not know that, and I should like to know more about it.
However immediately I am suspicious because the gospel of Matthew in the version I do know shows someone who regularly misunderstands the OT scriptures he uses because he does not read Hebrew but reed the Septuagint. In one debate I came across a wrangle with the Pharisees (a Matthew -specific one as I recall) that only made sense if you used the wrong meaning derived from the Septuagint and did not fit the Hebrew.
If there is a Hebrew Matthew (rather than presuming there was one), I suspect it is just translated from the Greek into Hebrew.
Yes, I had a look and what I found were Hebrew references to Matthew (a Greek one) no earlier than 600 AD, and various later translations into Hebrew, notably Shem Tov's medieval translation.
Thus whatever word they picked to translate 'Church' might not accurately translate the sense of the Greek Ekklesia as implied by Matthew.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-18-2017 at 09:07 PM..
Yeah -we're a tedious bunch. For Interesting Times, you need religions. Or, at least, Dogmas.
Steady on, you'll have me believing in Universal Justice!
Because, although she makes your month by saying just what you wanted to hear, our gracious Queen's reasoning is terminally flawed.
You are making the standard errors of apologist thinking, and I'm afraid that indicates your mental Buy -in rather than mine.
You concession than there was some fiddling and slippage here and there is just a way of shrugging the whole thing off.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Evidence counts and the way the evidence clearly points - and if it doesn't somebody has yet to show where - that should count for something and just dismissing it as an Ism of mine is - as I say - just one of the false reasonings of theist thinking.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You final strawman, though quite amusing, is also not to be taken too seriously. It quite overlooks the actual argument. Of course you may not be familiar with what my argument is, but that surely indicates a lot of selective reading on your part, and really, if you don't know the argument, how can you think up invented scenarios to explain it away?
Dear lady, nobody denies you are sweetness and light itself, but I regret to say that your apologetic reasoning is as intellectually dishonest as that of the most implacable Genesis - literalist.
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.
I certainly did not know that, and I should like to know more about it.
However immediately I am suspicious because the gospel of Matthew in the version I do know shows someone who regularly misunderstands the OT scriptures he uses because he does not read Hebrew but reed the Septuagint. In one debate I came across a wrangle with the Pharisees (a Matthew -specific one as I recall) that only made sense if you used the wrong meaning derived from the Septuagint and did not fit the Hebrew.
If there is a Hebrew Matthew (rather than presuming there was one), I suspect it is just translated from the Greek into Hebrew.
Yes, I had a look and what I found were Hebrew references to Matthew (a Greek one) no earlier than 600 AD, and various later translations into Hebrew, notably Shem Tov's medieval translation.
Thus whatever word they picked to translate 'Church' might not accurately translate the sense of the Greek Ekklesia as implied by Matthew.
Read this and there are other articles like it....
I think the question is whether the modern idea of "church" as an organized structure was intended or just a group of people who follow Jesus. I think it significant that the emphasis was on membership rather than organization.
I agree. The fact that they met in homes indicates it was an informal gathering of His followers, NOT some organized church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
^That is my take also. Not even "membership", really, but a following.
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.
no points, though dammit.
Steady on, you'll have me believing in Universal Justice! 
