The Depravity of Mankind

I notice that you are "at odds" with the "majority of scholars" as well who believe that the book was written after Christ and by an anonymous non-witness to the actual life of Chirst as you previously ascribed the authorship to Matthew himself, in fact it is those same scholars that believe that the text was originally in Greek.
Click to expand...

Is that your only defense? You claimed Matthew was, without doubt, authored in Aramaic. Are you prepared to defend this claim, or will you admit it is, at best, your opinion and that of a few scholars.

Specifically, only believers seem desperate enough to deny evidence and place the authorship into Matthews hands.
Click to expand...

Yet you are so quick to defend the Roman antichrist that you claim Matthew was authored in Aramaic, when there is little evidence to support this. As a man of reasion, not bound by any rules of faith, you must concede the possibility that the Aramaic text is a corrupt replication, and that I may be correct in what I say.

I have the upper hand. Whereas you must admit the possibility that you are wrong, I am free to believe that I am 100% correct. Understand?

Clearly not. Augusting (BDW) has made it clear that the apocrypha originally chosen to be there can be removed at will because there is a question as to its viablity as blessed books.
Click to expand...

I explained this and offered a resource to clarify it. Many of these books were not considered canonical even by Rome until 500 years ago. Why do you misrepresent the truth?
 
Last edited:
Augustine said:
Is that your only defense? You claimed Matthew was, without doubt, authored in Aramaic. Are you prepared to defend this claim, or will you admit it is, at best, your opinion and that of a few scholars.



Yet you are so quick to defend the Roman antichrist that you claim Matthew was authored in Aramaic, when there is little evidence to support this. As a man of reasion, not bound by any rules of faith, you must concede the possibility that the Aramaic text is a corrupt replication, and that I may be correct in what I say.

I have the upper hand. Whereas you must admit the possibility that you are wrong, I am free to believe that I am 100% correct. Understand?



I explained this and offered a resource to clarify it. Many of these books were not considered canonical even by Rome until 500 years ago. Why do you misrepresent the truth?
Click to expand...
And you claimed it was "without a doubt" authored in Greek by Matthew himself yet the scholars who deny that it was authored in Aramaic that you are so quick to support on that idea clearly agree that it wasn't authored by Matthew.

You are seriously spinning now. You have no "upper hand" you clearly use the same scholars who say that it is originally authored in Aramaic to say that it was authored by Matthew, then deny their scholarship in the next clack of the keyboard by saying that it is not authored in Aramaic but instead written in Greek by Matthew.... Each taking only that information from any source whatsoever to attempt to support your view that the Pope is satanic. I find your argument to be preposterous, first because it denies then approves of the same scholars, second that it denies grammatical rules of language and ignores a reasonable interpretation in any other area.

Many disagree, you are only sure because of faith in some infallability measure, the same faith in infallability that others put in the Pope. That God would not allow the Pope to mispeak when speaking for him....

You just say, "God would not allow all those men to err when writing this" it is the same exact argument, both are equally preposterous. Men err, it is what they do best especially when interpreting religious text.
 
And you claimed it was "without a doubt" authored in Greek by Matthew himself yet the scholars who deny that it was authored in Aramaic that you are so quick to support on that idea clearly agree that it wasn't authored by Matthew.
Click to expand...

I appealed to secular scholars to refute your claim that Matthew was without doubt authored in Aramaic. Naturally, I disagree with the scholars which believe it is pseudepigraphal. But why do you claim ALL scholars believe it is pseudepigraphal? Such is not the case. I've encountered many secular scholars which believe it was authored by Matthew, in Greek or Hebrew.

Men err, it is what they do best especially when interpreting religious text.
Click to expand...

I believe God is powerful enough to preserve His Word.
 
My authorities say the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, Syro-Chaldaic, the language of the Palestinian Jews of the time.

Eusebius, Polycarp and Papias all write of this gospel and it's Hebrew language origins.

According to scholars, Matthew preached to the Palestinian Jews, so it seems most natural for his written text to be in this language as well, because the greater amount of converts were coming outside of the Palestinian community once the Hebrew copy of the text was translated into Greek, scholars specualte that there was no need for the Hebrew text any longer.
 
froggie said:
My authorities say the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, Syro-Chaldaic, the language of the Palestinian Jews of the time.

Eusebius, Polycarp and Papias all write of this gospel and it's Hebrew language origins.

According to scholars, Matthew preached to the Palestinian Jews, so it seems most natural for his written text to be in this language as well, because the greater amount of converts were coming outside of the Palestinian community once the Hebrew copy of the text was translated into Greek, scholars specualte that there was no need for the Hebrew text any longer.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it was written in Hebrew and Greek. We assume it was written in one or the other, and translated from one to another; but what if it were written in Hebrew and Greek by Matthew, to accommodate Greek-speaking Jews as well as Hebrews?
 
Augustine said:
I appealed to secular scholars to refute your claim that Matthew was without doubt authored in Aramaic. Naturally, I disagree with the scholars which believe it is pseudepigraphal. But why do you claim ALL scholars believe it is pseudepigraphal? Such is not the case. I've encountered many secular scholars which believe it was authored by Matthew, in Greek or Hebrew.



I believe God is powerful enough to preserve His Word.
Click to expand...

I posted the Aramaic assertion in answer to your "It was written by Matthew in 'the original Greek' assertion. Many scholars believe that it was in Aramaic because of the assertion by earlier scholars that it was in 'hebrew' characters but not Hebrew.

I said the "vast majority" and the largest portion that believe it was authored by Matthew in Hebrew or Aramaic are the same scholars that you mocked earlier for their belief it was in Aramaic. There are earlier scholars that claimed it was written in Hebrew characters but not in Hebrew, hence many scholars believe that was a description of the Aramaic.

What we find is that you cannot be sure, that you insisted it was Matthew that wrote it when the vast majority of scholars do not believe that, those that do are attempting to "prove" the validity of the text, or that Matthew wrote his before Mark did in a long-standing argument over which text took from the other.

Now, belief in the infallibility principle based on "I believe God is powerful enough to preserve his word", is EXACTLY the same as the belief that God is powerful enough to keep the Pope from erring when speaking for Him. It isn't evidence it is just "I believe".

Hence your entire argument has come to "I believe". That's good. I expect you to believe. You, however, do not back up the belief with evidence very well, and in the beginning didn't even suggest that there was even scholars at all that believed it to be in Aramaic and then asserted that only "papal" scholars did, both of which are not true.

Why didn't you just say, "I have faith that it is true" instead of pretending to have evidence when all of it can be shown to be in question among scholars?
 
Damocles,

Many Scholars believe Matthew is pseudepigraphal; MOST scholars believe 1 Enoch is pseudepigraphal. Yet, if I remember correctly, you believe 1 Enoch was authored by Enoch himself, correct? (And I would agree). If that is indeed the case, would you like to explain this inconsistency?

To me, it is obvious that neither Matthew nor 1 Enoch are pseudepigraphal. Matthew, Mark, and Luke gathered a great deal of their information from the Q source, and supplemented it with recollection.

Why didn't you just say, "I have faith that it is true" instead of pretending to have evidence when all of it can be shown to be in question among scholars?
Click to expand...

I never said there is conclusive evidence that I am correct. I cannot know I am correct or not; I can only believe it, according to faith. You, however, did present your opinions as fact. This is a contradiction on your part. Whereas I am bound by rules of faith, you, an unbeliever, are bound by science.

Tell me, why do you believe in reincarnation? Can you provide any evidence to support it?
 
Last edited:
Augustine said:
Damocles,

Many Scholars believe Matthew is pseudepigraphal; MOST scholars believe 1 Enoch is pseudepigraphal. Yet, if I remember correctly, you believe 1 Enoch was authored by Enoch himself, correct? (And I would agree). If that is indeed the case, would you like to explain this inconsistency?

To me, it is obvious that neither Matthew nor 1 Enoch are pseudepigraphal. Matthew, Mark, and Luke gathered a great deal of their information from the Q source, and supplemented it with recollection.
Click to expand...
I didn't assert anything of the sort. I asked why Christ would refer to the text then those people with perfect knowledge would select to reject the text for the book, if even so that people could refer to what he was speaking of.

You keep asserting I believe in this religion some way or another. I believe most, if not all, of the Bible were written by other than whom it is often attributed. Like the Psalms being written mostly by David.
 
Augustine said:
You do. You worship Jahbulon, the god of Masonry and of Catholicism.
Click to expand...
I worship nothing of the sort. I am a Gnostic Deist who practices Buddhism. Catholicism and Masonry don't even get along. Masons are kicked out of their church, are not allowed to practice their religion.

I have an interest in all religions, I find them fascinating. Especially the part where they get to the insistence that somehow they are right, and not that group over there who believe the same thing but practice it differently are satanic.
 
Answer this question, Brent:

What book is this phrase out of Revelation 22 speaking of...

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Answer this question, Brent:

What book is this phrase out of Revelation 22 speaking of...

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Click to expand...
It speaks of Revelations. The entire Bible is not a "book of prophecy" it is a collection of books, some deal in history, another is a hymnal, some deal is prophecy, and that one deals supposedly in the world-ending prophecy. Although there is a current theological argument on that, it seems that the book better references as a "current" book if it is speaking of Rome. The Caesar's name even added up to 666... It is an interesting take, to say the least.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Answer this question, Brent:

What book is this phrase out of Revelation 22 speaking of...

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Click to expand...

It is speaking of the book of Revelation specifically. However, there are clear prohibitions elsewhere in the Bible on adding to or subtracting from the words of God. And FYI, God does not condone slavery. He does, however, command slaves to obey their masters, and masters to treat their slaves well. He also condones temporary servitude to work off debt (not ideal, but was a cultural necessity at the time).
 
Leviticus 2:

[44] Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
[45] Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
 
You really don't know what you are talking about, Brent. If you consider being allowed to beat your slaves, so long as they do not die from it before three days time "being treated well", you need to get some help.
 
Exodus 21:

[20] And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
[21] Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top