- Mar 27, 2007
- 35,515
- 4,344
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, maybe you and Thekla can duke it out on that point.I agree. It does not contain heresy.
The scholar consensus is that John probably did write Revelation sometime between 69ad and 95ad. John claims authorship and also the author claims that he was in exile in Patmos. The evidence is strong that the apostle John did indeed write it.
Trots off to get popcorn for the festivities.
alright then, lets say Mary was 87, and Joseph was 22. It has the same plausibility factor, because it doesn't contradict scripture. And be realistic. this is not "personal experience" but rather almost universal. The rarity of the ancient widower wedding the teenager would be remote at best. (or, not actually marrying... if you follow the EO way of thinking.)When people read Scripture and apply the "norm" or the "common extrapolation", it is reading from their personal tradition. While that is quite understandable, one must at least be honest in recognizing this is what is occuring. And then, when presented with an alternative that does not meet the 'norm' of their personal experience, it is important to be able to admit it is certainly a plausible alternative which does not contradict what is known from Scripture, as opposed to elevating their default assumption which is rooted in their personal tradition to somehow be more accurate or plausible.
mostly because Mary and Joseph were quite ordinary people. Also, they were betrothed before the incarnation was even announced to them. They were a couple planning on being wed. It makes little sense to inject another take on it, unless you have a reliable source.Aside from that, what about the Incarnation itself was a 'matter of course'? Why is it reasonable to apply that as a standard for anything surrounding it? Why would one assume anything of the "norm" would be applicable to a once in eternity event?
so? Bruce Lee didn't actually write his book on Kung Fu. his wife did while he convaleced from a broken back. It was his words, however, and he was the author. I have no problem with the idea of a scribe writing down what he was told. I'm fair certain that the Apostle Paul did as well... as he in one Epistle goes so far as to say "hey, look, I wrote this with my own hand." He is still the author regardless if a scribe is taking it down.Both recent scholarship and "tradition" attest that Revelation was not actually recorded by John - (St. Prochorus has long been identified as John's disciple and scribe, who recorded the information, yet the book identifies John as its author/writer).
yes. As above.As I indicated earlier (as did Narnia) attestation in earlier times is to the one who originates the information , not the writer of the information. If one is to hold that this practice is not of God, should the book of Revelation be included in scripture ?
the decree states "to be avoided." I would think that means in nice-nice terms, "don't read it."I think your point regarding the Protoevangelium is the basis for its rejection from the canon of Scripture. There is not a record of its being rejected because it was believed it contained heresy.
sure it does. Explained above. When comparing apples and oranges, be prepared to end up with fruit salad.And while by your standard Revelation may qualify as valid for the canon because it was written during the life of John even though it's doubtful John actually authored it, it does not meet the standard that Uphill Battle has set to qualify as being true.
Actually, it does not have the same plausibility factor, for historically it is much more common to see a marriage between an older man and a young woman than it is the other way around, especially in a patriarchal society.alright then, lets say Mary was 87, and Joseph was 22. It has the same plausibility factor, because it doesn't contradict scripture. And be realistic. this is not "personal experience" but rather almost universal. The rarity of the ancient widower wedding the teenager would be remote at best. (or, not actually marrying... if you follow the EO way of thinking.)
And how do you know from Scripture that they were quite ordinary?mostly because Mary and Joseph were quite ordinary people. Also, they were betrothed before the incarnation was even announced to them. They were a couple planning on being wed. It makes little sense to inject another take on it, unless you have a reliable source.
no such reliable source exists.
Fine, but that is a change from your position earlier in the thread which indicated that a pseudoepigraphical work being accepted as Scripture equated an untruth coming from the mouth of God.so? Bruce Lee didn't actually write his book on Kung Fu. his wife did while he convaleced from a broken back. It was his words, however, and he was the author. I have no problem with the idea of a scribe writing down what he was told. I'm fair certain that the Apostle Paul did as well... as he in one Epistle goes so far as to say "hey, look, I wrote this with my own hand." He is still the author regardless if a scribe is taking it down.
this is a far cry from someone PRETENDING to be someone else 100 years after the fact. (Alright, let's be generous and say 50 odd years after the supposed author was dead.)
they are nowhere near the same thing... but isn't make believe fun?
If the Papal decree were still in affect you might have a point. However, it is not, so nothing being overlooked here at all.the decree states "to be avoided." I would think that means in nice-nice terms, "don't read it."
It's funny that a Papal decree can be so easily overlooked!
ah... here you go with the "much more common" argument. Didn't you wave your finger at me earlier about that? how commonality of experience was irrelevant because of the uniqueness of the incarnation? hmm.Actually, it does not have the same plausibility factor, for historically it is much more common to see a marriage between an older man and a young woman than it is the other way around, especially in a patriarchal society.
absence of evidence to the contrary.And how do you know from Scripture that they were quite ordinary?
no, it doesn't. Something written by a scribe, is not Pseudopigraphical. The author remains the originator, whether or not a scribe wrote it down. This is a fairly simple concept. It is vastly different than someone years and years and years later PRETENDING to be someone, and writting under that guise.Fine, but that is a change from your position earlier in the thread which indicated that a pseudoepigraphical work being accepted as Scripture equated an untruth coming from the mouth of God.
other than the "don't read this" by one of your supposed Popes.If the argument is now based on the dating of the piece, again, there is a reason why it was not part of the canon. That reason does not mean it was viewed as being a false record however.
the fact that the Papal degree isn't in effect anymore IS the point!If the Papal decree were still in affect you might have a point. However, it is not, so nothing being overlooked here at all.
Fair enough. Point still being that without a Scriptural record of their ages, making any assumption based on the norm is still just an assumption.ah... here you go with the "much more common" argument. Didn't you wave your finger at me earlier about that? how commonality of experience was irrelevant because of the uniqueness of the incarnation? hmm.
besides, I know this. I'm just saying that if you're using the litmus that scripture doesn't deny it, so therefore it can be true.... the plausibility of my example is identical to that of yours.
Is no evidence at all.absence of evidence to the contrary.
And you are making assumptions as to the intent of the author and their source of information.no, it doesn't. Something written by a scribe, is not Pseudopigraphical. The author remains the originator, whether or not a scribe wrote it down. This is a fairly simple concept. It is vastly different than someone years and years and years later PRETENDING to be someone, and writting under that guise.
Not for anybody who understands the difference between doctrine and church goverance.other than the "don't read this" by one of your supposed Popes.
the fact that the Papal degree isn't in effect anymore IS the point!
so? Bruce Lee didn't actually write his book on Kung Fu. his wife did while he convaleced from a broken back. It was his words, however, and he was the author. I have no problem with the idea of a scribe writing down what he was told. I'm fair certain that the Apostle Paul did as well... as he in one Epistle goes so far as to say "hey, look, I wrote this with my own hand." He is still the author regardless if a scribe is taking it down.
this is a far cry from someone PRETENDING to be someone else 100 years after the fact. (Alright, let's be generous and say 50 odd years after the supposed author was dead.)
they are nowhere near the same thing... but isn't make believe fun?
no, it doesn't. Something written by a scribe, is not Pseudopigraphical. The author remains the originator, whether or not a scribe wrote it down. This is a fairly simple concept. It is vastly different than someone years and years and years later PRETENDING to be someone, and writting under that guise.
indeed. I also assume that water is wet. It's just an assumption, of course...Fair enough. Point still being that without a Scriptural record of their ages, making any assumption based on the norm is still just an assumption.
false. Extrapolation of evidence is that in the lack of extraordinary example, normal modes are the likely result.Is no evidence at all.
no. I never once mentioned what the intent of the dishonest author of the Protoevangelium was. I only made mention that it was in fact, a dishonest account, and therefore shouldn't be trusted.And you are making assumptions as to the intent of the author and their source of information.
oh, I understand, don't you fret. I understand that "infallible" only gets labled on items that haven't been proved to change.Not for anybody who understands the difference between doctrine and church goverance.
riiight... so, you have a scribe taking dication within the life of the attributed author. That would be a scribe... you have a "scribe" who is taking "dictation" from someone long dead... it is not the same thing.I'm not sure I follow. Identifying the source of the info is identifying the source; without knowing the particular manner in which the information was transmitted - and the length of time between the telling and the recording, its hard to draw lines. Certainly, if the information is dictated, it is more likely the one with 'pen in hand' is referred to as scribe.
I'm assuming you're still talking about the Protoevangelium here.How does one determine if the attestation is a matter of "pretending" or a matter of identifying the source of the information ? It can't only be a matter of whether we like the information or not. There is also the possibility that the original author did not make the attestation, but it was added later. The dating seems to be 2nd century, which makes it around the same time or possibly earlier than much of the NT manuscripts in existence. Further, it is not unreasonable to think that the book takes existing, accepted, information and 'bundles it', creating a narrative.
which would only indicate that a scribe would write the word in the style that they would use. That does nothing at all to dispel authorship.Per Revelation, key terminology (the word for lamb, as an example - arni vs. amnos) is at variance with the customary terminology of the Gospel writer.
not supprising because 1) you're talking about someone far advanced in years, after much passing time andAlso (again working from memory) there is absent the 'stylistic fluidity' of the Gospel and epistles.
and most don't say "hey look, I'm "james" and I wrote this!Attestation to the Gospel writer is by tradition, and has been questioned by more recent scholars. If one were to try to verify authorship of many or all of the NT books, one is left largely with tradition to identify authorship.
so the best defence that can be forwarded is a subsequent copiest took it upon himself to add I James wrote this?
whew.
then why is it accepted as truth, if not enough evidence exists?
Oh please!!!! Mary was an unwed mother? Do you imagine how she would have been treated? She was married and had other children! The Gospels are about CRHIST! Not Mary and Joseph! They don't matter! Our salvation has no relevance whatsoever on "this saint and that saint" ...fabrications!!!... and we shouldn't even, in these last days, be preoccupied with such petty matters!!!! What petty drivel!!!!At the risk of dragging other threads into this one, there is no Biblical evidence that they married (the word for married and betrothed is the same word in Greek) nor that they had "other" children (the word adelphos has then and now about more than half a dozen meanings). In short, the Biblical evidence supports neither view.
Oh please!!!! Mary was an unwed mother? Do you imagine how she would have been treated? She was married and had other children! The Gospels are about CRHIST! Not Mary and Joseph! They don't matter! Our salvation has no relevance whatsoever on "this saint and that saint" ...fabrications!!!... and we shouldn't even, in these last days, be preoccupied with such petty matters!!!! What petty drivel!!!!
She most certainly WAS married and had other sons and daughters! But my point is that this is NOT what the Gospels are about! WHO CARES!!!In John, where the pharisees mention that Abraham is their father, they also (at least in some manuscripts) state that they (the pharisees) are not born of "fornication". It can certainly be read as a jab at Christ.
Past this, it is my view that if we claim to rely on explicit Biblical evidence, then we should do so. There is none to support the view that they definitely married and had other children, nor that they didn't.
If one is interested in delving further into the Biblical evidence, the giving of Mary to John at the crucifixion is a cultural acknowledgement that Mary had no other sons.
wow....Although my information is sketchy - there is evidence that although the betrothal service was typically public, the marriage did not have to be so. If this were the case, the pregnancy of the betrothed female, and the betrothed's male acceptance of the pregnancy could be considered evidence of marriage even if none had occured.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?