Eight Things Your Pastor Will Never Tell You About the Bible

[sojourner]

Sensational perhaps, but nonetheless actuate.

No. Forgery is a legal tem.

 

[Plato]

But are any of the 8 points actually wrong?

Yes some of the ex pastors points are wrong. Most notably #5, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark simply don't say what the pastor says they do. The pastor says Mathew and Mark say that the risen Jesus was only seen in Galilee and this contradicts Luke and John who say seen in and about Jerusalem 1st.
But there's no contradiction the ex pastor is just wrong.
Both Matthew and Mark (chp. 28, chp.16) instead both say the risen Jesus was 1st seen by the women in and about the tomb at Jerusalem, Mark even adds that 2 of the apostles saw Jesus at Jerusalem. And...worse neither Matthew or Mark say Jesus was ever seen in Galilee, but instead that....the women were..... 'instructed'... to tell the apostles Jesus had risen and would 'meet' them in Galilee. It never says the apostles even went there and even if they did that doesn't preclude the possibility Jesus appeared to all 11 grouped together at Jerusalem before they went to Galilee. No contradiction pastor's dead wrong.

 

[fantome profane]

No. Forgery is a legal tem.

Would you prefer the term "nothos"? An actual Greek word used in that time period to describe exactly this kind of literature, and it gives us a good understanding of just how people felt about this practice.

 

[sojourner]

Would you prefer the term "nothos"? An actual Greek word used in that time period to describe exactly this kind of literature, and it gives us a good understanding of just how people felt about this practice.

Pseudonymous writings were common during the period and were a way of honoring -- not "ripping off" the person whose name was used. It usually happened when a student of the named person wrote -- or an emissary of the named person -- wrote in the name of that person.

 

[fantome profane]

Pseudonymous writings were common during the period and were a way of honoring -- not "ripping off" the person whose name was used. It usually happened when a student of the named person wrote -- or an emissary of the named person -- wrote in the name of that person.

There is absolutely zero evidence to back up this claim. Nothing, nada, zip.

And if this was seen as "honouring" the person why were such works referred to as "nothos"?

 

[sojourner]

There is absolutely zero evidence to back up this claim. Nothing, nada, zip.

And if this was seen as "honouring" the person why were such works referred to as "nothos"?

Because the term nothos means "a child of a mixed marriage," which is a rather poetic way of describing the pseudonymous process.

 

[fantome profane]

Because the term nothos means "a child of a mixed marriage," which is a rather poetic way of describing the pseudonymous process.

That is not what it means. It is an impolite term that I cannot translate here.

http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_law_glossary?page=41&greekEncoding=

And you still have zero evidence to back up your claim.

 

[sojourner]

That is not what it means. It is an impolite term that I cannot translate here.

A Glossary of Athenian Legal Terms

And you still have zero evidence to back up your claim.

Here ya go:

A Glossary of Athenian Legal Terms

 

[fantome profane]

Here ya go:

A Glossary of Athenian Legal Terms

Yes, read it.

nothos, pl. nothoi · Lit. “a *******.” In the classical period, Athenian citizenship was confined to those born of citizen parents on both sides. The child of an unmarried union between citizen and non-citizen was clearly illegitimate, and had rights neither of inheritance nor of citizenship. The status of the child of unmarried citizen parents is less clear: such a person was clearly a nothos without rights of inheritance, but it is disputed whether s/he was or was not a citizen. It is possible, though less certain, that the word nothos was used to describe the child of a mixed marriage even in those contexts (e.g. before 450 BCE) where such a marriage was legally permissible, even though such a child might have full rights to inheritance as well as to citizenship.

Do you see those asterisks there? (*******) Go look at the link and see what those asterisks are.

You are deliberately choosing the less certain (possible) definition over the clear and definite one. And you should be ashamed of doing that.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, read it.

Do you see those asterisks there? (*******) Go look at the link and see what those asterisks are.

You are deliberately choosing the less certain (possible) definition over the clear and definite one. And you should be ashamed of doing that.

The "less probable" term, though, illustrates what "*******" means in the context of the Greek usage, though, which was why I used it. It doesn't mean "illegitimate" in the same sense that that term is used in our context.

 

[fantome profane]

The "less probable" term, though, illustrates what "*******" means in the context of the Greek usage, though, which was why I used it. It doesn't mean "illegitimate" in the same sense that that term is used in our context.

Absolute nonsense. When this term was used to describe literary work it was used in a negative sense. The word was not used in a vacuum, we can tell by the context and the other things that people said about the works of literature they called "nothos" that they were condemning them, they were not praising them in some strange obscure poetic sense. No one ever said look at this good "nothos" and read it and follow what it says. They said this "nothos" should be discarded, treated as illegitimate. You are grasping at straws here.



And still, there is absolutely no evidence to back up your claim.

 

[sojourner]

Absolute nonsense. When this term was used to describe literary work it was used in a negative sense. The word was not used in a vacuum, we can tell by the context and the other things that people said about the works of literature they called "nothos" that they were condemning them, they were not praising them in some strange obscure poetic sense. No one ever said look at this good "nothos" and read it and follow what it says. They said this "nothos" should be discarded, treated as illegitimate. You are grasping at straws here.



And still, there is absolutely no evidence to back up your claim.

If the term was so derogatory -- how did the works so termed end up being revered???

See these links:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/27/27-1/27-1-pp065-075_JETS.pdf

Pseudonymity

 

[fantome profane]

If the term was so derogatory -- how did the works so termed end up being revered???

See these links:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/27/27-1/27-1-pp065-075_JETS.pdf

Pseudonymity

If you are using these documents to support your claim that "nothos" was not used in a derogatory sense, then I have to point out that neither of these documents makes any reference to the term "nothos".

If you are finally attempting to give evidence to your original claim that this was this practice was done to honour the person in whose name they wrote, then I am going to have to give these documents a thorough reading and get back to you.

 

[sojourner]

If you are using these documents to support your claim that "nothos" was not used in a derogatory sense, then I have to point out that neither of these documents makes any reference to the term "nothos".

If you are finally attempting to give evidence to your original claim that this was this practice was done to honour the person in whose name they wrote, then I am going to have to give these documents a thorough reading and get back to you.

I'm saying that it's possible that nothos was used in a more descriptive sense.

Please read through the documents at your leisure. I think you'll find the consensus is that the practice was used to further the teaching and not to "rip off" the person named.

 

[Skwim]

I selected one of the examples at random and took a look at it, #4.

EXAMPLE #4 GIVEN IN THE ARTICLE.

" 4) The Resurrection Appearances in the Gospels Have Irreconcilable Differences

The gospel accounts of the resurrection appearances of Jesus differ substantially, including where the risen Jesus is said to have appeared to his apostles. The gospels of Matthew and Mark place the appearances solely in Galilee. However, Luke, as well as the book of Acts, has Jesus appearing only in and around Jerusalem.

To add to the confusion, the Gospel of John shows Jesus appearing in both Galilee and Jerusalem. The actual appearance of a resurrected Jesus would have been so stunning that it raises the question of why there was not even one record of such an event that made a deep enough impression to be passed down in all the gospels."
​

Ijustwantpeace's criticism, which so many here take as valid.

"The differences are definitely not irreconcilable he actually offers the reconciliation in the article. Matthew and Mark says Jesus appeared in Judea( not only Judea as the article states). Luke and Acts says he appeared in Jerusalem(not only Jerusalem as the article states). John says he appeared in both. The obvious reconciliation is that he appeared in both places after the resurrection."
​

First of all Matthew and Mark don't mention Judea at all, nor does the article ---take a look ↑ So who knows where Ijustwantpeace is coming from. And the relevant verses in Matthew and Mark only mention Galilee, which is north of Judea.

source
​

(All verses here are taken from the KJ Bible.)

"Matthew 28:7
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.


Mark 16:7
7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. ,
​

As for Luke, it does say he appeared in Jerusalem

Luke 24:49

49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
​

Nothing about any other places.

As for John, the only relevant verse I could find is:

John 21:1
21 After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias [Galilee]; and on this wise shewed he himself.
​

So we do have an irreconcilable difference. In three books we have Jesus appearing to his disciples in Galilee and in one in Jerusalem.

 

[outhouse]

There is absolutely zero evidence to back up this claim. Nothing, nada, zip.

Actually he does.

And I have showed you the 7 levels of authenticity, that states exactly what he is stating.


As well Pauls epistles, that are disputed are viewed as "secondary letters of Paul" not forged.


Maybe you don't have a clue, but many of Pauls epistles were co authored by a community. They were not just Pauls epistles, they were a communities epistles anyway, making your point inane.

Pseudepigrapha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mark Powell writes that the first-century church did not seem to have a problem with the now-disputed letters since their thought was compatible with Paul's doctrines. An established convention at the time—especially epistles written in the first two or three decades after Paul's probable martyrdom, may have been viewed as part of the legitimate Pauline tradition and included as such in the New Testament canon

And if this was seen as "honouring" the person why were such works referred to as "nothos"?

What exact date are you referring to????????????????


There was a difference between centuries on how this was viewed.

 

[outhouse]

No. Forgery is a legal tem.

Its funny it is just a way to ignore the epistles not even in dispute were not all Pauls anyway.

They were also just Pauline traditions, never direct epistles from Paul himself, for the most part.

Most were a community effort, never meant to be attributed to Paul alone as a single author.

 

[fantome profane]

Actually he does.

And I have showed you the 7 levels of authenticity, that states exactly what he is stating.


As well Pauls epistles, that are disputed are viewed as "secondary letters of Paul" not forged.


Maybe you don't have a clue, but many of Pauls epistles were co authored by a community. They were not just Pauls epistles, they were a communities epistles anyway, making your point inane.

Pseudepigrapha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mark Powell writes that the first-century church did not seem to have a problem with the now-disputed letters since their thought was compatible with Paul's doctrines. An established convention at the time—especially epistles written in the first two or three decades after Paul's probable martyrdom, may have been viewed as part of the legitimate Pauline tradition and included as such in the New Testament canon




What exact date are you referring to????????????????


There was a difference between centuries on how this was viewed.

Did you have a look at the two links that sojourner gave? You should, they are very interesting.

See these links:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/27/27-1/27-1-pp065-075_JETS.pdf

Pseudonymity

 

[outhouse]

Did you have a look at the two links that sojourner gave? You should, they are very interesting.

I know this work.

You catch this.

The first real heydey of the forger and the critic, however, began in the fourth century B.C. The existing traditions of forgery blossomed anew. "

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Eight things your pastor will never tell you about the Bible. Interesting article. Please discuss!

The content of the link you've posted is inadmissable heresay.