Soulgazer
Christian Gnostic
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.
We are going to have fun then since I am one of those who believes in Biblical inerrancy (as it pertains to the original autographs).
We could. However, in my experience you would have to keep a strong sense of humor about you.
Biblical inerrancy is a relatively new theology, started in the late nineteenth century, in response to Darwinism, and given that it has never been taken seriously except for a relatively few proponents, has not had much serious critique.
I spent a good deal of the past fifty years studying Mediterranean History and theology. I'm afraid that I might inadvertently say something that might shock you, or someone else's sensibilities. However, if we agree to have each others backs against any flames from people coming in late in the thread, I am all for an enjoyable conversation.
A sense of humor I have.
Well, I see that we are going to disagree from the get go since the ECF's and others after them did a pretty good job of supporting the inerrancy of scriptures.
Flames are against the posting rules.
The thing about 'facts' is that facts never interpret themselves but are interpreted through ones framework so I guess throw out your facts and see where it leads us. I will tell you ahead of time that I believe that Christianity is a unique religion so any similarities to others are merely a product of coincidences and/or inferences not of fact.
Let's start with your take on "unique" religion, as well as your definition of "Christianity" so that we can safely move on to "Scripture". For this argument, I will try to remain within the terms you define and attack or defend with known and generally accepted scientific and historical facts. Is that satisfactory?
I found your explanations to be entertaining. Just as the psalmist predicted that I would. *Grin*In context Matthew has Jeremiah 1-13 in his mind specially with his references to "the blood of the innocent' (v. 4), "the potter" (vs. 1 and 11), the renaming of a place in the valley of Hinnom (v.6), violence (v.1), and the judgment and burial by God of the Jewish leaders (v. 11). Matthew is using typology and combining allusions to texts in both Jeremiah and Zechariah. The common theme between them and Matthew being the quality of the leadership. Israel rejected the 'good" leaders (such as Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Jesus) and consequently suffer under "bad" ones.
Matthew is following a standard literary convention of his time by referring only to one source ( the more obscure but more important one in this case). Mark also employed the same literary convention in 1:2 by combining quotations from Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 (and probably Exodus 23:20) but only citing Isaiah.
As with most of the references of the OT in the NT narratives the lack of closer or exact parallel between the scriptural text and the actual event just testifies to their historicity. Matthew is not falsifying history in order to conform to a passage of scripture but rather seeks passages that may illuminate the event as it happened while citing just one of the sources. This is again a common literary convention of his time.
We are going to have fun then since I am one of those who believes in Biblical inerrancy (as it pertains to the original autographs).
Soulgazer said:Actually Evergreen, I was thinking more along the lines of (1) using Isaiah's Prophesy of "Emanuel" which is a failed prophesy concerning the outcome of a battle, which invalidated Isaiah's status as a Prophet under Temple law. This indicates that the Author had no knowledge of Temple Law.
(2)the use of non existent prophesies such as Matthew 2:23, which reads, And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, He shall be called a Nazarene. There is no mention of Nazareth or Nazarenes anywhere in the Old Testament.
(3) Matthew 27:3-10, is another glaring error, "Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah", which is actually in Zechariah 11:12-13: And they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver. Then the LORD said to me, Cast it into the treasury--the lordly price at which I was paid off by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and cast them into the treasury in the house of the LORD. This is not only the wrong book but also a very different passage from the quotation in Matthew, which indicates at least a scribal or translational error, adding more weight to Jerrome's surmise.
Jerome picked up on these errors in the Fourth century; So it's nothing new. The problem only arises when someone starts to argue Bible Biblical inerrancy which is a much more modern doctrine.
Evergreen, Isaiah says God told Isaiah to tell Ahaz, the King of Judah, not to be concerned about Rezin (the king of Syria) or Pekah (the king of Israel). But according to 2 Chr.28:5-6 "God delivered him (Ahaz) into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter."Isaiah's prophecy was not directed towards the 'outcome of the battle'. The prophecy was that the setting up of a king in the midst of Judah [ the son of Tabeal ] would not stand or take place. Did it?
I would have to ask who the prophets were that Matthew referred to. Who is to say that the prophets spoken of here were Old Testament prophets?
"Jeremy the prophet" - The words quoted here are not found in the Prophet Jeremiah, but in Zech. xi. 13. But St. Jerome says that a Hebrew of the sect of the Nazarenes showed him this prophecy in a Hebrew apocryphal copy of Jeremiah; but probably they were inserted there only to countenance the quotation here.
One of Colbert's, a MS. of the eleventh century, has zaxariou, Zechariah; so has the later Syriac in the margin, and a copy of the Arabic quoted by Bengel. In a very elegant and correct MS. of the Vulgate, in my possession, written in the fourteenth century, Zachariam is in the margin, and Jeremiam in the text, but the former is written by a later hand.
Jeremiah is wanting in two MSS., the Syriac, later Persic, two of the Itala, and in some other Latin copies. It is very likely that the original reading was dia toi profhtou, and the name of no prophet mentioned. This is the more likely, as Matthew often omits the name of the prophet in his quotations. See chap. i. 22; ii. 5, 15; xiii. 35; xxi. 4. Bengel approves of the omission.
It was an ancient custom among the Jews, says Dr. Lightfoot, to divide the Old Testament into three parts: the first beginning with the law was called THE LAW; the second beginning with the Psalms was called THE PSALMS; the third beginning with the prophet in question was called JEREMIAH: thus, then, the writings of Zechariah and the other prophets being included in that division that began with Jeremiah, all quotations from it would go under the name of this prophet. If this be admitted, it solves the difficulty at once. Dr. Lightfoot quotes Baba Bathra, and Rabbi David Kimchi's preface to the prophet Jeremiah, as his authorities; and insists that the word Jeremiah is perfectly correct as standing at the head of that division from which the evangelist quoted, and which gave its denomination to all the rest. But Jeremiah is the reading in several MSS. of the Coptic. It is in one of the Coptic Dictionaries in the British Museum, and in a Coptic MS. of Jeremiah, in the library of St. Germain. So I am informed by the Rev. Henry Tattam, Rector of St Cuthbert's, Bedford." ____ Adam Clarke
There is no problem that I can see, except that this discussion has gotten off topic.
The problem I do see is with the fact that the gnostics deny the virgin birth of Christ. What is your belief concerning this? And do you believe that Jesus died , was entombed, rose again on the third day, and later ascended unto his Father in heaven? And how much of Matthew 24 do you believe has been fulfilled?
There is no mention of Nazareth or Nazarenes anywhere in the Old Testament.
Christian Gnostics believe nearly everything you believe..I don't know who told you we don't believe Christ was born from a virgin
Mayhaps I should recommend the same to you. The comment was "There is no mention of Nazareth or Nazarenes anywhere in the Old Testament." and you came back with Nazarite? To pare a pear with a pair of shears.Uh-oh:
Num 6:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate [themselves] to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate [themselves] unto the LORD:
Num 6:13 And this [is] the law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:
Num 6:18 And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation [at] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put [it] in the fire which [is] under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.
Num 6:19 And the priest shall take the sodden shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put [them] upon the hands of the Nazarite, after [the hair of] his separation is shaven:
Num 6:20 And the priest shall wave them [for] a wave offering before the LORD: this [is] holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.
Num 6:21 This [is] the law of the Nazarite who hath vowed, [and of] his offering unto the LORD for his separation, beside [that] that his hand shall get: according to the vow which he vowed, so he must do after the law of his separation.
Jdg 13:5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.
Jdg 13:7 But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean [thing]: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.
Jdg 16:17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I [have been] a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any [other] man."
Now obviously you have no idea what any of this means, otherwise you wouldn't think it doesn't exist. If I may, can I suggest not opining on it until you learn? A brash thought, I know ...
While this thread might not be the best place, it would be very appropriate for you to tell us all what "gnostic" means to you, since the word refers to a very specific heresy condemned by the Church, that material substance is evil and only Spirit is good, and therefore Christ had not come in the flesh. (Refuted solidly by John the theologian / revelator / Disciple whom the Lord loved)
I found your explanations to be entertaining. Just as the psalmist predicted that I would. *Grin*
I looked up where that word for "nazarite" is usedUh-oh:
Num 6:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate [themselves] to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate [themselves] unto the LORD:*snip*.......
Now obviously you have no idea what any of this means, otherwise you wouldn't think it doesn't exist. If I may, can I suggest not opining on it until you learn? A brash thought, I know ...
Not anymoreIt seems you're alone in your vote choice. Can't say I'm surprised!!!
I'm glad I can entertain you.
Do you have an equally entertaining rebuttal for me?
Larry Swain has summarized the evidence by which we locate Matthew in Antioch (e-mail correspondence):To set the terminus ad quem, Ignatius of Antioch and other early writers show dependence on the Gospel of Matthew. Dependence on Mark sets a terminus a quo for the dating of Matthew, which should be assumed to have been written at least a decade after the gospel upon which it relies. Several indications in the text also confirm that Matthew was written c. 80 CE or later.
- Patristic testimony re: Jerusalem, while deemed incorrect has a negative value of demonstrating that noone thought Matthew came from anywhere else except the East.
- It is doubtful that it would have been accepted so early and so widely unless one of the larger, more important churches sponsored it. Since Rome, Ephesus, Alexandria, and Jerusalem all have very important reasons against them, that leaves Antioch.
- Peter's status in Matthew accords with his standing in Antioch, said to be the first bishop there. Not a strong argument on its own, but it fits the pattern.
- Antioch had both a large Jewish population as well as being the site of the earliest Gentile missions, Matthew more than the other gospels reflects this duality.
- Only in Antioch did the official stater equal 2 didrachmae, Matt 17.24-7.
- The two texts which seem to refer to Matthean tradition (in the one case to the text of Matthew in the other case possibly to the text, but more likely to M material) are the letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and the Didache whose provenance is also Syria or northern Palestine thus placing Matthew fairly firmly in those areas at the end of the first century.
- We know that in the third century there was a school in Antioch which claimed to go back to ancient times which had several OT textual traditions available, if the tradition is true, then this accords with both the Matthean citations of the OT as well as the "Matthean School" tradition; particularly since members of this Antioch school are said to have known Hebrew and Greek, which again points out a strong parallel with the author of Matthew.
- There are some strong similarities between the Lucianic text of the Hebrew Bible and Matthew's citations of OT texts in some instances. Lucian lived and worked in Antioch and is believed to have worked with an Ur-Lucianic text, i. e. one of the above mentioned OT traditions to which author Matthew had access.
- One of the concerns within the Matthean text is a conservative approach to the Torah which again accords well with Antioch as well as Palestine
- The text also seems to be concerned to react against some of the material coming out of Yavneh, which again places it in an area which Yavneh had some influence, thus northern Palestine and Syria, and Antioch.
- The community described in Matthew has usually been understood as a wealthy one, which rules out Palestine after the war of 70.
Gospel of Matthew
Because I view Revelation as the same event as the Olivet Discourse...the destruction of OC Jerusalem and it's temple/sanctuary as prophecied and I truly think that if the unbelieving Jews read Revelation, I am sure they would believe the same wayLLOJ, why do you think all of Matthew 24 has been fulfilled?
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?