Paul and Jesus

[smokydot]

Most likely, they were wrong. We have no evidence from Matthew who wrote it. Actually, there seems to be a purposeful attempt to leave authorship unknown. More telling, when the author of Matthew introduces Matthew, the tax collector (the supposed author), there is no evidence that this individual is the writer. Actually, it seems unlikely because there is no distinction. Matthew is spoken about just as any other character.

Thanks, fallingblood.

But the early church fathers, including Clement and Polycarp--both mentioned in the NT, were unanimous that the apostle, Matthew, wrote this gospel.

I'm just not inclined to try to overthrow the testimony of those who were there.

As for John, a little research ends up showing that it was debated as to what John it was. It wasn't until later on that which John it was was actually agreed upon. Because of this debate, it seems unlikely that he was the writer, since they don't even know who it is. More so, it is unlikely that John was still alive. The first followers, and closest followers of Jesus didn't seem to end up too well for the most part. And even if John laid low, by the time the Gospel of John was written, there is little reason to believe that he was alive. In addition, internal evidence suggest multiple authors of the text.

Does that include the letters, 1,2,3 John?

This isn't even mentioning that there is little reason to believe that the Disciples of quoteJesus were even literate. Just purely from a statistical point of view, only about 1-3%, in that area, were literate (some push this number as high up as 10%, but for the most part, that is an empire wide statistic). For the most part, this was saved for the elite. That is why such a wide use of scribes occurs. More so, we even see Paul using scribes by his own admissions.

But the scribes don't affect the authorship. They are merely transcribing what was said.

And I'm not convinced that illiteracy is even relevant. It doesn't make them poor eye witnesses, particularly in light of the fact that
Jesus said he would enable them to recall and understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15; Lk 24:48-49).

I dunno', fallingblood. . .I think the testimony of the NT carries more weight with me than does reconstruction nearly 2,000 years after the fact.

Polycarp and Clement anyway were quite separated from the time of the writing. There is little reason to believe they knew the disciples, and really only are relaying tradition.

But they are both mentioned in the NT, Clement in relation to Paul and Polycarp in relation to John.
They were in a position to know much about the writers of the NT.

I think the sources you are using are misinformed.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But they are both mentioned in the NT, Clement in relation to Paul and Polycarp in relation to John.

Really? I recall Clement being mentioned but there's no evidence that links him to the apostolic writing.... but where does Polycarp appear?

 

[smokydot]

Was it now? Didn't Paul say that the Corinthians were not really practicing the Lord's Supper for a variety of reasons?
This verse is corrective, not declarative.

No, he did not. . .and you don't correct it if it's not being practiced.

"For whenever you eat the bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. . .
For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord (belief in its atoning sacrifice) eats and drinks judgment on himself (because of his unbelief)."

Can't get more "declarative" than that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, he did not. . .and you don't correct it if it's not being practiced.

"For whenever you eat the bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. . .
For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord (belief in its atoning sacrifice) eats and drinks judgment on himself (because of his unbelief)."

Can't get more "declarative" than that.

Well, the Corinthians were doing something but Paul explicitly says that they were not observing the Lord's Supper.

have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22

 

[fallingblood]

Thanks, fallingblood.

But the early church fathers, including Clement and Polycarp--both mentioned in the NT, were unanimous that the apostle, Matthew, wrote this gospel.

I'm just not inclined to try to overthrow the testimony of those who were there.

Doesn't really matter if they were all just accepting the tradition, that was already quite separated. But are you sure Polycarp and Clement mention that Matthew was the author of that Gospel?

From my knowledge, Papias was the first to mention the Gospel of Matthew, but there is debate as to whether or not this is the Gospel we have. I believe the general consensus is that Papias was speaking of a different Gospel that he referred to as Matthew. This is, from what I can see, where the tradition began. So we can see that the tradition is flawed at best.

As for them being mentioned in the Gospels, which A_E has already mentioned doubt, it doesn't quite matter. Because it still doesn't put them close or even near the apostles.

So if anything, it is doubtful they were there. As there really isn't any evidence besides trying to connect some dots.

Does that include the letters, 1,2,3 John?

They were probably written by the same community. That is the best they are.

But the scribes don't affect the authorship. They are merely transcribing what was said.

And I'm not convinced that illiteracy is even relevant. It doesn't make them poor eye witnesses, particularly in light of the fact that
Jesus said he would enable them to recall and understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15; Lk 24:48-49).

I dunno', fallingblood. . .I think the testimony of the NT carries more weight with me than does reconstruction nearly 2,000 years after the fact.
But they are both mentioned in the NT, Clement in relation to Paul and Polycarp in relation to John.

I think you missed my point. If the disciples of Jesus were illiterate, as in they couldn't read or write, how could they author any text? They couldn't, and we have no evidence that they did. And if they were able to recall everything correctly, why do they contradict each other? Your explanation doesn't work.

And honestly, I give the testimony of the NT little weight on it's own. Given that it contradicts itself, is written by unknown authors, authors who claimed to be other people, and is made partially for theological purposes, I believe you have to take it with a large grain of sand.

They were in a position to know much about the writers of the NT.

I think the sources you are using are misinformed.

Says who? Because one was mentioned in the Bible? And not even mentioned in context of the apostles? Where is the evidence that they knew the apostles at all? Or knew any of the writers? I don't believe any Early Church Father even claimed that Matthew was the author of the Gospel we have today.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If the disciples of Jesus were illiterate, as in they couldn't read or write, how could they author any text? They couldn't, and we have no evidence that they did.

They could have dictated it to a scribe, which wasn't terribly expensive.

 

[Oberon]

but where does Polycarp appear?

It's not suprising you missed it. Luke mentions him in a footnote, but apart from that he isn't mentioned in the main texts. Several epistle authors as well as john cite him in their bibliographies though.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's not suprising you missed it. Luke mentions him in a footnote, but apart from that he isn't mentioned in the main texts. Several epistle authors as well as john cite him in their bibliographies though.

:clap

 

[fallingblood]

They could have dictated it to a scribe, which wasn't terribly expensive.

You do make things harder by throwing out facts such as this. I can see why Jesus-mythers use the method they do now; it is so much easier just to ignore facts.

 

[outhouse]

I can see why Jesus-mythers use the method they do now; it is so much easier just to ignore facts.

for me its not a matter of ignoring facts, with all the fiction going on, its hard to draw a line on non fiction.

 

[smokydot]

Doesn't really matter if they were all just accepting the tradition, that was already quite separated. But are you sure Polycarp and Clement mention that Matthew was the author of that Gospel?
From my knowledge, Papias was the first to mention the Gospel of Matthew, but there is debate as to whether or not this is the Gospel we have. I believe the general consensus is that Papias was speaking of a different Gospel that he referred to as Matthew. This is, from what I can see, where the tradition began. So we can see that the tradition is flawed at best. As for them being mentioned in the Gospels, which A_E has already mentioned doubt, it doesn't quite matter. Because it still doesn't put them close or even near the apostles.
So if anything, it is doubtful they were there. As there really isn't any evidence besides trying to connect some dots.
They were probably written by the same community. That is the best they are.
I think you missed my point. If the disciples of Jesus were illiterate, as in they couldn't read or write, how could they author any text? They couldn't, and we have no evidence that they did. And if they were able to recall everything correctly, why do they contradict each other? Your explanation doesn't work.
And honestly, I give the testimony of the NT little weight on it's own. Given that it contradicts itself,

I'd be interested in seeing some of those contradictions.

is written by unknown authors, authors who claimed to be other people, and is made partially for theological purposes, I believe you have to take it with a large grain of sand.
Says who? Because one was mentioned in the Bible? And not even mentioned in context of the apostles? Where is the evidence that they knew the apostles at all? Or knew any of the writers? I don't believe any Early Church Father even claimed that Matthew was the author of the Gospel we have today.

It seems you are misinformed.

 

[fallingblood]

I'd be interested in seeing some of those contradictions.

When was Jesus crucified? I use this one a lot. The Gospel of John states that it was on the Day of Preparation of Passover. In other words, it is the day before Passover, the day in which the sacrificial lamb is slaughtered. This means that there was no Passover supper being eaten by the disciples.

The synoptic Gospels make a different case. We see Jesus' disciples asking about the Passover meal. Jesus tells them where to go for it. They presumably eat the Passover meal. And then Jesus is crucified on Passover. There is no way Jesus can be crucified on both dates, Passover and the Day of Preparation for Passover.

Then we have the problems of Matthew and Luke and their nativity stories. Who visited Jesus, shepherds or wise men? Then there are the genealogies that differ considerably. Not to mention that the nativity stories differ greatly.

Then there is the discrepancy between John and the synoptics again as to when Jesus cleanses the temple. John has it at the beginning of the ministry, the synoptics put it at the end.

That is just a taste of the contradictions.

It seems you are misinformed.

Care to explain? Just saying it does not make it so.

 

[smokydot]

When was Jesus crucified? I use this one a lot. The Gospel of John states that it was on the Day of Preparation of Passover. In other words, it is the day before Passover, the day in which the sacrificial lamb is slaughtered. This means that there was no Passover supper being eaten by the disciples.

The Day of Preparation refers to weekly preparation on Friday for the Saturday Sabbath.
In this case, it is the Day of Preparation for a special Sabbath (Saturday) of the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Jesus was crucified on Friday, the Day of Preparation for the special Sabbath of the Feast of Unleavened Bread,
which was also the day of Passover (which began at sundown the evening before).

Passover - Thursday sundown to Friday sundown - Last Supper
Day of Preparation - Friday, Passover - Jesus crucified
Feast of Unleavened Bread - Friday sundown to following Friday sundown
Special Sabbath of Feast - Saturday

Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread together were eight days,
and in the NT sometimes the eight-day period was just called Passover, and sometimes it was just called Unleavened Bread.

The synoptic Gospels make a different case. We see Jesus' disciples asking about the Passover meal. Jesus tells them where to go for it. They presumably eat the Passover meal. And then Jesus is crucified on Passover. There is no way Jesus can be crucified on both dates, Passover and the Day of Preparation for Passover.

He can if they were the same day, which they were. See above.

Then we have the problems of Matthew and Luke and their nativity stories. Who visited Jesus, shepherds or wise men?

Why not both? What's the problem?

The shepherds visited him while in Bethlehem.
The Magi visited his house in Nazareth.

Then there are the genealogies that differ considerably. Not to mention that the nativity stories differ greatly.

Difference is not contradiction.
What differences do you see in the nativity stories?

Then there is the discrepancy between John and the synoptics again as to when Jesus cleanses the temple. John has it at the beginning of the ministry, the synoptics put it at the end.
That is just a taste of the contradictions.

Like bookends to Jesus' mininstry, there are two cleansings of the Temple, one at the beginning and one at the end.
Each has different details--selling cattle and sheep, the whip (Jn 2:14-15),
and Jesus statements at the Temple (Mt 21:13) as well as his discourse after leaving the Temple (Mt chps 24-25).

Care to explain? Just saying it does not make it so.

Your misinformation is explained above.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'd be interested in seeing some of those contradictions.

OK, what about when the stone was rolled away, just exactly who was there to give their account? Matthew said there was just Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. He mentions an earthquake and an angel sitting on the stone. Neither of these women go into the tomb because the angel tells them Jesus is gone. The guards outside the tomb are scared to death.

Mark says Mary Magdalene, Mother Mary and Salome went to the tomb and the stone was rolled away and they went inside the tomb. There an angel told them Jesus was gone. No mention of an earth quake or guards.

Luke says, Mary Magdalene, Mother Mary, Joanna, and others where there and they went inside the Tomb.

John says it was Mary Magdalene alone who discovered the stone was rolled away and Jesus was gone.

So tell me, who set out in the beginning of the week and went to the tomb?

Did they go into the tomb?

Was there one or two angels dressed in white?

Where there guards there or not?

 

[fallingblood]

The Day of Preparation refers to weekly preparation on Friday for the Saturday Sabbath.
In this case, it is the Day of Preparation for a special Sabbath (Saturday) of the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Jesus was crucified on Friday, the Day of Preparation for the special Sabbath of the Feast of Unleavened Bread,
which was also the day of Passover (which began at sundown the evening before).

Passover - Thursday sundown to Friday sundown - Last Supper
Day of Preparation - Friday, Passover - Jesus crucified
Feast of Unleavened Bread - Friday sundown to following Friday sundown
Special Sabbath of Feast - Saturday

Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread together were eight days,
and in the NT sometimes the eight-day period was just called Passover, and sometimes it was just called Unleavened Bread.

The Day of Preparation for the Passover. Specially, for the Passover. Not the Sabbath or a special Sabbath. We are talking specifically about the day before Passover, as John clearly states. Try again.

He can if they were the same day, which they were. See above.

They are only the same if you ignore what John states and then make up a solution that doesn't fit the Gospel accounts.

Why not both? What's the problem?

The problem, they are not mentioned in both accounts. You can't assume that they both happened if they are not in both accounts. Why would one author leave it out if it happened? Plus, that is only the beginning of the problems with the nativity story.

The shepherds visited him while in Bethlehem.
The Magi visited his house in Nazareth.

Wrong. The Magi visited him in his house in Bethlehem. Matthew is of the idea that Joseph and Mary were from Bethlehem, and thus the reason they have their home there, and later are said to have to relocate somewhere else. More so, Matthew tells us that the visit was in Bethlehem. So it doesn't work how you are saying.

Difference is not contradiction.
What differences do you see in the nativity stories?

Basically the whole nativity story is what I find to be different. Very little sinks up. More so, the genealogies are contradicting each other by stating that two different individuals were Joseph's dad. They contradict each other by being so different.

Like bookends to Jesus' mininstry, there are two cleansings of the Temple, one at the beginning and one at the end.
Each has different details--selling cattle and sheep, the whip (Jn 2:14-15),
and Jesus statements at the Temple (Mt 21:13) as well as his discourse after leaving the Temple (Mt chps 24-25).

So why don't they mention both in the accounts? Why does Matthew leave the first one out? Why does Matthew have Jesus doing something very different during that time?

More so, there is a huge problem with the idea you are proposing. If Jesus cleansed the temple at the beginning of his ministry, he would have died then. The reason being that it would have been seen as a sign of insurrection. By doing so, it placed him as a potential threat, in the same way that other so called Messiahs were. Simply, historically, it is implausible.

Your misinformation is explained above.

Dancing around the information is explaining anything.

 

[Reverend Rick]

smokydot, are you going to reply?

 

[smokydot]

The Day of Preparation for the Passover. Specially, for the Passover. Not the Sabbath or a special Sabbath. We are talking specifically about the day before Passover, as John clearly states. Try again.

WRONG! You don't know the OT.

The text does not say "Day of Preparation for the Passover". . .it says, "Day of Preparation" only.
Do your homework. There was no day of preparation for the Passover.

They are only the same if you ignore what John states and then make up a solution that doesn't fit the Gospel accounts.

You are the one ignoring what John states and adding your opinion to it. Do your homework.

The problem, they are not mentioned in both accounts. You can't assume that they both happened if they are not in both accounts. Why would one author leave it out if it happened?

Who made up those rules?

Not every detail is included in every account in the gospels.

Plus, that is only the beginning of the problems with the nativity story.

And they would be?

Wrong. The Magi visited him in his house in Bethlehem. Matthew is of the idea that Joseph and Mary were from Bethlehem,

You know Matthew's mind now? And how do you know that? Certainly not from the words of the NT.

and thus the reason they have their home there, and later are said to have to relocate somewhere else. More so, Matthew tells us that the visit was in Bethlehem. So it doesn't work how you are saying.

Do your homework. . .read the text. It says no such thing about the visit being in Bethlehem. That's an assumption on your part.

Basically the whole nativity story is what I find to be different. Very little sinks up. More so, the genealogies are contradicting each other by stating that two different individuals were Joseph's dad. They contradict each other by being so different.

That was addressed in post #34.
They are two different genealogies, one of Mary, the other of Joseph.

So why don't they mention both in the accounts? Why does Matthew leave the first one out? Why does Matthew have Jesus doing something very different during that time?

Who made the rule that every account had to include every detail?

More so, there is a huge problem with the idea you are proposing. If Jesus cleansed the temple at the beginning of his ministry, he would have died then. The reason being that it would have been seen as a sign of insurrection.

Rome is the only one who could kill him, and they certainly would not have seen that as a sign of insurrection against Rome.

By doing so, it placed him as a potential threat, in the same way that other so called Messiahs were. Simply, historically, it is implausible.
Dancing around the information is explaining anything.

The only "implausibility" and "dancing around" going on here is your ignorance of the Scriptures, your rules about how they must be written, and your loose handling of them which adds what is not there.

Your understanding is weak at best. . .your exegesis is appalling. . .and you are in way over your head.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Post #34 smokydot if you please.

 

[smokydot]

Post #34 smokydot if you please.

Thanks, Rev.

 

[fallingblood]

WRONG! You don't know the OT.

The text does not say "Day of Preparation for the Passover". . .it says, "Day of Preparation" only.
Do your homework. There was no day of preparation for the Passover.

I don't know the OT? What is this statement based off of? And there was a Day of Preparation for the Passover, and John says that is when Jesus was crucified. Immediately preceding Jesus being crucified, Pilate is laying down the verdict. We are told specifically when this is: John 19:14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.

So instead of telling me to do my homework, you may actually want to pick up a Bible, or do any research at all.

You are the one ignoring what John states and adding your opinion to it. Do your homework.

Look above. John 19:14 is all you have to look at to see that you're wrong. I am not ignoring what John stated, and I'm taking him in context. John 19 is about the verdict and later the crucifixion, which we are told happened on the Day of Preparation of the Passover, which is the day before the Passover. The day in which the Passover meal was prepared, when the sacrificial lamb was slaughtered.

Who made up those rules?

Not every detail is included in every account in the gospels.
And they would be?

Logically, if it was important, it should be mentioned. If not, and we see that another Gospel is saying something else happened, then there is a problem. It is only logical.

You know Matthew's mind now? And how do you know that? Certainly not from the words of the NT.

I can read the Gospel, that is it. Matthew 2, speak of Herod asking where Jesus was born. The Magi say Bethlehem. Herod send the magi to Bethlehem, where the magi find Jesus in a house. The implication here is that it is the house of Mary and Joseph, and we have already been told that it was in Bethlehem. There is no suggestion at all that the magi went to Nazareth.

Later, we are told Herod dies, and that they are going to return to Israel. Where does Joseph first pick? Not Galilee but Judah, as in where Bethlehem was. Instead, we are told that they changed their mind and decided to live in Nazareth. The wording gives the implication that it was a relocation instead of going back home.

Do your homework. . .read the text. It says no such thing about the visit being in Bethlehem. That's an assumption on your part.

Seriously? Does Matthew 2:7-8 specifically state the Herod sent the Magi to Bethlehem? Yes it does. That is where they find Jesus. There is no other suggestion.

That was addressed in post #34.
They are two different genealogies, one of Mary, the other of Joseph.

Show me where it says that one of the genealogies are of Mary? Then explain why they would even do that? And then explain why both genealogies state specifically that they are going through Joseph? You have quite a bit of work to do.

Who made the rule that every account had to include every detail?

There is no rule. However, one account can't have Jesus being swept off to Egypt and the other one having him go home. That is called a contradiction.

Rome is the only one who could kill him, and they certainly would not have seen that as a sign of insurrection against Rome.

Maybe you want to do a little research on that. Maybe more specifically on other so called messiahs and religious leaders who were killed for similar acts. And yes, causing such a commotion in the temple would not have been allowed. The reason is simple, because it could cause a revolt. Jerusalem was already a tinderbox. All you have to do is a little research.

The only "implausibility" and "dancing around" going on here is your ignorance of the Scriptures, your rules about how they must be written, and your loose handling of them which adds what is not there.

Your understanding is weak at best. . .your exegesis is appalling. . .and you are in way over your head.

Yet, I've shown that you are mistaken quite a few times. You seem to have done little research on the subject. Maybe instead of making cheap shots at me though, you could actually provide evidence or logic for any of your claims.