When was first Gospel written and what was it?

Page 5 of 5 (87 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5
This post has 86 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 645
Dean J | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 9 2012 8:01 PM

John:

While reading your lenghty post, I made notes of several incorrect statements and logical errors. I had intended to respond to it until I got to this portion, which caused to me question whether or not it is worth it.

I quoted a portion of the text and supplied an ellipsis for the sake of brevity. Now I am being accused of dishonesty or gross ignorance. Judging from the length of your post, I understand that brevity on a message board is not a concern which you share, but the ad hominem nature of your attack is uncalled for in any case.

No one here has rejected papias or any of the church fathers. At this point the majority of your post is straw-man argumentation, and I find it almost humorous that it was yourself who objected to the "tone" of others earlier in the thread.

Since I cannot see anything positive coming from continuing this discussion, I believe this is a good point to end it.

I highly suspect from some of your comments that you have not even read Black. Anyone else who might be following this thread and have an interest, I encourage you to read Black for yourself. He has been misrepresented here. My comments were factual but some were taken out of context or misconstrued.

To Summarize: The Bible is true. Matthew was written by Matthew along with the other apostles. It is first in the canon because it was the first to be written. Q-theory is a man-made theory which is false.

One last note on the "textual interdependence" comment.  This is where Black is strongest. He completely reconstructs the gospel of Mark from readings in Matthew and Luke. Anyone who claims he is weak in this area simply did not read it or is not intellectually honest.

That's a very convenient why of extricating yourself from having to actually back up your statements. 

No, you ended the quote at the very part that would have rendered the quotation an argument against your position. And I qualified my statement by stating that your use of ellipses 'seemed' dishonest or ignorant. I see that you have no problem reading all kinds of false motives and positions into others, but yet when you are called to account you are quick to take offense. The fact still remains that you used ellipses in such a way that it removed the part that would have contradicted your position. If that isn't either ignorance or deception, what is it? It's not I that should be trying to backtrack and account for myself--your use of ellipses created a dishonest argument--own your faults for once instead of trying to shift the blame.

Once again you haven't followed the logic of the argument presented to you--his textual reconstruction is done within the context--as pointed out numerous times--of an implausible scenario that rejects what Papias said--and an appeal to the earliest traditions of Papias is supposed to be the appeal of his argument over others. Now I wonder if you have read Black, or whether you really understood what he was trying to accomplish.

Posts 645
Dean J | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 9 2012 8:07 PM

Terry M Moore:

It's not available from Logos, but in "Redating the New Testament" John A. T. Robinson makes a good argument for all the gospels being written before AD 70. In "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses", Richard Bauckham speaks of Papius and the gospels as eyewitness accounts. It's not always an easy read, but worth the effort.

Robinson's work is almost indispensable in my opinion ... hint hint Logos. 

Posts 26268
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 9 2012 8:12 PM

John:
If anyone wants to see where "Q" theory leads spiritually speaking

John:
THis is where "Q" theory leads.

Yes, I am familiar with the Jesus Seminar - I know people who respect the participants and some who consider the whole seminar as humorous - voting via colored balls on the unknowable. I know people pretty much anywhere on the spectrum between. The forums are not the place to discuss these issues. Yes, I am culpable for my part in this - which Is why I've said nothing arguable here - I know who I know.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 397
John | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 9 2012 8:33 PM

Dean053:

That's a very convenient why of extricating yourself from having to actually back up your statements.

No, you ended the quote at the very part that would have rendered the quotation an argument against your position.

"... who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language"

There you go Dean, I posted the rest of the quote. Now which part of it do you claim is an argument against my position? I assume that you are referring to the statement about Hebrew? I never took a position one way or another on a Hebrew Matthew. That is your sacred cow, not mine. I never uttered a single word on the subject.

I suggest that you go back and carefully re-read the thread and see. Nothing I have stated in this thread hinged upon Matthew being written in a particular language. There is nothing in the quotation that contradicts my position, and hence, there was no evil intent on my part of using a partial citation.

Please, go back and quote me where I took a position on Matthew being in (or not being in) Hebrew. If you cannot do it, then you are off on another red herring of a goat trail.

And do I need to point out (again), that all of this fillibustering on your part does nothing to advance your theory? Even if you were able to prove me 100% wrong, it does not prove your own position to be correct!

The End.

Posts 645
Dean J | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 9 2012 8:48 PM

I'm not aware that I'm fillibustering. On the contrary, I've sought to provide evidence, and to require from you that you back up your statements--which you have refused to do. 

Okay, so it was ignorance on your part. For someone coming on here, throwing out accusations that people don't believe the Bible or accept the traditions relating to the Gospels, you should have a better idea of the arguments. As is commonly accepted, Matthew is not a translation of Aramaic. It was composed in its present form in Greek. Therefore if Matthew wrote the sayings of the Lord in Aramaic, it was not our present text of Matthew. What was it then? I think it was the sayings of Jesus found in Matthew's Gospel--the parts identified as Q--which form the core of it. That does no violence to any church father, nor to inspiration, nor to anything. For some reason you think it's the unpardonable sin.

And BTW, what do you mean you haven't a position? Black's position requires that he--contrary to the church fathers which he says everyone else rejects--deny that Matthew was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew--you can find that in his book, page 66 should you care to check. Why? Because, unlike you, he knows that it can't be a straight translation but at best a freely expanded work. That's why he has to argue that Origen misinterpreted Papias, and that the term dielektw (check how that word is used in the NT and elsewhere) here means Hebrew style, not dialect, contrary to all ancient readers and the opinion of virtually any scholar of Greek. Black at least knows that Origen is an argument against him. Again you confirm my suspicions that you didn't really understand Black when you were reading him. 

No, 'proving' you wrong wouldn't 'prove' me right. One would hope, however, that it might persuade you to hear people out a bit better before jumping to uncharitable conclusions

Posts 397
John | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 9 2012 10:13 PM

Dean053:

And BTW, Black's position requires that he--contrary to the church fathers which he says everyone else rejects--deny that Matthew was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew--you can find that in his book, page 66 should you care to check.

Page 66 has no such argument. The copy I have is copyright 2001. I see there is a new edition dated 2010 on Amazon. Possibly your page 66 is my page 50. The amazon preview is not working for me for some reason.

If anyone would like to check this out for themselves, a preview of Blacks book is available online at Google Books. Page 50.

Blacks thesis is not totally dependent upon this one point which Dean here has chosen to focus on. He does on page 50 point out that it is likely that Matthew was written in a "Hebrew Style" and not "Hebrew Language". He also states his belief that many have followed this error. However, Deans assertion that his entire thesis stands or falls with this one point is a pretty large leap in logic in my opinion. Black sets forth a theory of his own as an alternative to Q theory and markan priority. But his alternative theory need not be 100% correct in order to prove the assertion that Q theory is false.

I believe Blacks theory has a lot going for it, and I am convinced it is essentially correct. If Dean here could come up with substantial evidence contrary to the essential thesis, I would love to have a look at it. So far all I see is a debatable contention over a very minor point. Nitpicking if you will.

Attacking Blacks thesis does absolutely nothing to advance "Q" theory. Each theory must stand or fall on its own merit.

The only way you will prove "Q" theory is to come up with evidence or proof. Everyone knows that there is no evidence or proof to support it. Your theory is just a theory. It has not been proven, and YOU CANNOT PROVE it.

I am just going to ignore all your Ad Hominem remarks against me. They mean nothing. As if arrogant words about teaching others "humility" could come from a heart posessing humility.

Matthew ... the inspired Word of God.

Posts 8893
fgh | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 10 2012 3:52 AM

MJ. Smith:
I may be wrong but it seems to me that what is important in what is in the Gospels not how they came together. The first is vital the second is interesting.

Yes

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received."  Wilfrid Stinissen

Mac Pro OS 10.9.

Page 5 of 5 (87 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 | RSS