The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Will yell at children because our parents thought us too!

Or were your's just dumb animals?

Posscript, from the timeline of humanity you're the dummy...

But that's all fixable if gods tell u otherwise, dummy!

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs It's news to me that "there was a Hebrew version of Matthew," for example. I'd love for you to now list a few hyperlink-and/or-bibliographic citations about that. And ... "they were kept as a weapon?" Gee, I didn't know any of that until now. Were any of the other canonical – and/or non-canonical – Gospels similarly treated? Do we have any solid indication that the Hebrew versions came first? We know that several languages – Hebrew, Aramaic, various versions of Latin – were simultaneously in circulation at that time. I'd also be rather interested to hear what you've called "uninspired holy books." Not to then pass judgment on your selections, but simply out of curiosity as to what they are.

Hebrew versions of Matthew that I know of are:

1. A version published in a polemical work (AGAINST Christianity) by one Shem Tov ben Issac ibn Shaprut in the 13th/14th century.
2. A Hebrew version of Matthew found later by a bishop, Du Tillet was his name. Apparently the Pope of the time ordered all copies of the Talmud in Rome siezed, and his minions grabbed everything written in Hebrew. Du Tillet noticed the Gospel and asked the Pope for it.

I downloaded both versions, so I can put them up if you want them. Shem Tov's version is of interest to Jehovah's Witnesses because it uses Jehovah's name in the New Testament. Neither is of great interest to translators, as no old copies exist.

As for the Hebrew version being first, contemporary accounts record the fact. There's plenty online. It would stand to reason, as Matthew wrote for the Jews and quotes Messianic prophecies heavily in support, more so than the others.

Aramaic & Syriac versions came later, as Greek was the lingua franca in the 1st century.

I think you are confusing two different things.

1) It was known as early as the second century AD that Matthew wrote some kind of account of Jesus. It was called The Oracles or The Sayings, so it must have been a record of his teachings rather than his deeds. It was written "in the Hebrew tongue", but that must mean Aramaic because Aramaic was the language which Jesus spoke. It's hardly likely that Matthew, transcribing the words live, would have translated them into Hebrew in his head. Such an account of Jesus's teachings is known to have been used by Luke and also by whoever wrote the gospel which we now call "Matthew". Scholars call it Q for "Quelle", the German word for a source.

2) Our "Gospel according to Matthew" is actually a second edition of Mark, a Greek text based on a Greek original. A Hebrew version of it was known from early times as the Gospel of the Hebrews, but there is no sign whatever that the original writer translated Mark into Hebrew first, expanded it in Hebrew, and then back-translated the expanded version into Greek to give our "Gospel of Matthew". That would have shown up in dramatic differences from Mark's original. So the Hebrew version must be the translation and the Greek version the original. This gospel also incorporates a Greek version of Q, slightly different from Luke's, as well as additional material, mostly parables. The degree of difference between the two versions of Q suggests that the two writers were using different Greek translations of it.

It's easy to see how the first gospel became confused with Matthew's Book of Oracles, since both were known to exist in Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic versions. That's why Matthew became associated with the first Gospel.

It is also well-understood that these gospels were not contemporaneous accounts, i.e. written by someone who was standing there listening to Jesus speak and writing down what he heard. Indeed, the writer of Luke/Acts opens the account by saying that he "had investigated everything from the beginning" and intended to now sort everything out, acknowledging that there were at that time different conflicting accounts.

None of this material came to us sporting an SHA-1 digital signature.

Luke & Acts were written by Luke, about 61CE. He had access to Apostles, and had accompanied Paul on some of his travels. The account at Acts 27 of the shipwreck reads very much like the ship's log.

Matthew wrote for Hebrews, giving a genealogy, and Hebrew scripture quotations. Mark wrote for Romans, and is brief & to the point. I'm frankly amazed anyone thinks Matthew was derived from Mark and if you examine them you'll probably agree. There's a lot of original material in Matthew. But I'm not in the Thought Police, and you folks can think what you want, on these and subsequent points.

Where are people getting Aramaic from? Paul and Jews spoke Hebrew, and Acts records it. (Acts 6:1; 21:40; 22:1; 26:12) When it says "In the Hebrew Language," what do you think it means? Aramaic writings are later. All quotations From Jesus & the Apostles were from the Greek Septuagint. The Jews were exiled en masse in 136CE by Hadrian, and then there was Aramaic.

Insights from the study of translators also allow us to scotch some nonsense. Because of the profusion of manuscripts and fragments now available, translators can pick out later additions, localise certain renderings, and in the case of the Hebrew Matthew versions, trace some of the path the manuscript travelled through. The corner of one page was retranslated from a Coptic version of the Greek Septuagint, for instance. So we presume it passed through Egypt.

The dates accepted by translators are earlier than those out in the wild, because they are in a position to know.

Unfortunately, assertions such as "Luke & Acts were written by Luke, about 61CE. He had access to Apostles, and had accompanied Paul on some of his travels," are disputed by those who prefer to be a good bit more skeptical. For instance: although 'Luke' is a "nominal Author," how much objective information do we actually know about him? (Answer: "none.")

None of the accounts about "Paul's travels" – which are exclusively found in a precious-few pages of Acts, ever suggest that anyone else "accompanied" him.

It's noticeable that not a single one of the "Gospel authors" ever encountered any of their peers. Simply because there were no "peers."

To some of us, "the entire story of Paul" remains very-suspiciously "Roman Empire." Here is a fellow who seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth, as "[S]Paul of Tarsus" mostly did.

On the one hand, declares himself to be "a Pharisee," and yet who just a few pages later asserts – when things start turning ugly – that he has a Golden Ticket. He is "a Roman Citizen by birth," therefore entitled to "appeal to Caesar himself," which upon the ending of Acts he seems to be doing. Yes, things seem to finally be looking up for this man when Acts suddenly ends.

And yet, in a never-explained turn of events, in 2nd Timothy he has suddenly become a defeated Jew. He has resigned himself to be "poured out as a drink offering." Here are the writings of a defeated Jewish man who has less than twelve hours to live. What happened to his "golden ticket?"

The "impedance mismatch" is never explained.

C'mon: if he had previously declared and obtained "Roman citizenship exemption" ... "to Caesar you have appealed, so to Caesar you shall go!!" ... how did he now find himself "a Jew," subject to a Jewish religiously-motivated execution on purely-religious charges?

Yeah. Some things just don't really add up.

... But, as I've said before, "when you are dealing with historic writings, and maybe with historic politics, some things just don't add up."

Crap. I'm back again. I red the bible because I had to, some reading cause they want to, others read cause they need to... I question all because where you'll find bibles.

If you think you can do something but don't know how, you may fail! If you know how and know you can, you likely won't!

The bible sets humanity up to fail, because it wants to control you, don't be stupid!

Course (sand in your v j j) if you're that old dog,,, too bad, we're and it's evolving not biologically but also!

You've lost what I* have in my translation!¡!¡! I feel a need for a stupid here but don't wanna exclude anyone yet!

Children aren't the future, until they've learned better than the past; what's that called again?!.

Not the same history over and over... or, in any Fing way debatable!

I only watched a small part of Faces of Death once: a lady with a small kid in hand was running to beat a crossing trains path. When she realized, she wasn't gonna make it so stopped but the kid kept running, still in hand, was flung from grip to death!!!!! 😥

Accidents happen, yes! Put, my Hatred for the lady instantly exploded as sorrow for the kid. :madsad:

I feel the same sorrow for anyone metaphorically blind by needless hatred or utter stupidity (even more than my own because apparently that's possible ), created from @ny "fears." Like, artificial intelligence driving our cars for example? Your fear maybe that you don't wanna lose control of the fun you could have killing people accidentally? Or, that humans think we'll make robots to kill us all, because that's what humans Subconsciously want? But, I dissect( •time ).

I've known people who trained their dogs with rolled up news papers or squirt guns and I've know people who trained there dog with love and patience: guess what dogs are cooler...

If you love us praying for you, you need it!

Fear, love and patience are 3 different things. devils and angels are one thing.

@sundialsvcs: Maybe your sources are poor, or maybe you haven't researched things enough. When things seem contradictory, people assign it all as nonsense and pass on. I have studied it.

I'm not going to try to convince what I see as invincible skepticism. I suggest that if you are fond of reading, you should read Roman history to help you understand the book of Acts. I will comment for the benefit of others on the scriptural points raised:

• We know that Luke was a medical doctor, a disciple, and a literate (and therefore educated) man. His diagnoses of the medical ailments Jesus cured are precise.
• Paul was accompanied on various travels by:Barnabas; John Mark; Silas; Priscila & Aquila; Timothy, according to Acts.
• On gospel writers encountering their peers, Matthew relates examples of Jesus taking Peter, James & John along on occasion. Two or three witnesses were required under Mosaic Law. Mark & Luke were not apostles. Anyhow, they were writing about Jesus, not themselves.
• Hereditary and non-hereditary Roman citizenship was available to non-Romans. Paul's father evidently had hereditary Roman citizenship. The other possibility is that Paul's mother had, or was Roman herself. Paul was a Jew, and a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin. He was not a priest.
• Around when Acts ends, (61/62 CE) Paul was evidently tried before Nero and released. The great fire in Rome was in 64CE, and it burned for 3 days. Romans blamed Nero. Nero blamed Christians, and started executing them in large numbers. It is believed he killed the apostles Peter and Paul about 65CE.

If you approach the Bible looking for a dead end, you will certainly find many. When you figure out that what you thought was a dead end actually isn't, that's when you learn something

@business_kid: "It's simply that we have differences of opinion about the same things. And that's okay."

In this forum, I hope that we can continue to express divergent opinions without feeling the need to persuade each other.

I choose to regard ancient texts with a great amount of skepticism. If you care to call it that. I don't look at texts and try to apologize for them – and let me hasten to say that this comment has no "sideways meaning" towards anyone else specifically including you.

In most of what you're saying, there are either "assumptions" or "historical gaps." Then, there's the fundamental question of "pseudegraphia." The fundamental and generally-unresolvable question of whether the attributed author of a work is in fact the true author. By and large, in the present millennium, we really can't know for sure. We have (conflicting, of course ...) scholarly opinions, but no certainty. And, "the more you look, the more questions you find." (This has nothing to do with belief.)

Without stating the obvious, you can't "be a Jew" if either of your parents were "Romans." Just sayin' ... Throughout the entire Old Testament the "Jews" very much considered themselves to be "purebloods." They frequently cast out from among their numbers anyone who had taken a "foreign" spouse. They would never have accepted a scion of an occupying nation to be "one of their own," even if the person himself asserted otherwise.

"Real Jews" could never "appeal to Caesar" – usually, they just got nailed to a cross.