Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

A Statement From A Recently Turned Non-Christian

Whatever became of the king?

Matthew 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

And they'll throw in the towel "i added this its not in the bible"

tob
 
Ephesians 4:29 "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."
Ephesians 5:4 "Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks."
2 Timothy 2:16 "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."
Titus 2:7:8 "In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you." = no joke
 
King James,
I can admire your devotion to the truth, wherever it takes you. God approves of that; He is truth, and you are better off openly doubting than one who doubts but will not admit it. I have had moments of doubt myself, and I remain willing to accept that I can be wrong about many things concerning Him.

Being Catholic, I accept that a person who truly is unable to believe, but follows God to the best of his ability, is not condemned by God for that, and salvation is open to him, if he continues to seek the truth, and act on it as best he can.

My prayers and best wishes are with you on your journey. He'll be there, even when you aren't sure about Him.
Barbarian, you said that "I can be wrong about many things concerning him" This is not the same doubt we ex christians have. The doubt's we have are doubt's about the veracity of the God of the bible and the bible account's themselves. Not doubt's in what we lack in knowing about him and his truth.
 
Unless you are a devout atheist, believing on faith that He doesn't exist, your doubt about his existence is only different in degree from the doubt of a Christian about particulars of His existence.
 
Unless you are a devout atheist, believing on faith that He doesn't exist, your doubt about his existence is only different in degree from the doubt of a Christian about particulars of His existence.
Barbarian, we ex-christians don't hold doubts about the God of the bible and the bible itself only by subjective means such as faith. We hold objective reasons to doubt those things because the evidence that points to him is lacking.
 
Doubt is understandable. Agnosticism is "I don't know." Atheism is assuming there is no God, on faith.

I know the dark night of the soul; it's a waypoint on the path to God.
 
As it pertains to this discussion, the Gospels were written by those whose names are on them, all followers of Christ, prior to A.D. 100.

Free,

Would you please provide evidence to support this statement?

Oz
 
The authors names are in bold type

Matthew

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Mark
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Luke
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

John
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

tob

turnorburn,

That doesn't answer the issue of the origin of, say, 'The Gospel according to Matthew'. Was that statement in the original text?

Let's use Matthew as an example. The language that appears at the beginning of my ESV copy of Matthew, 'The Gospel according to Matthew', was not in the original text. It is tradition that tells us that Matthew is its author. This article by Olugbenga Olagunju, 'Provenance [source] of the Gospel of Matthew', explains this. The traditional view is that

'the apostle Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic.... This tradition stems from the testimony of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (died c. A.D. 130). The record of Papias's statement about Matthew survives only in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.16). It reads, "Matthew collected (synetaxato) the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language (Hebraidi dialekto), and each interpreted (hermeneusen) them as best he could." On first analysis the tradition of Papias appears to say that the apostle Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic, and various translations were made of this work. So it was apparently understood, with minor modifications, in the early churches' (McKnight 1992:527).

Therefore, the heading, 'The Gospel according to Matthew', in our New Testaments is based on tradition, starting with Papias (now Papias's statement is only available in Eusebius's writings & he died ca. 339), and is not stated directly in the original Greek text. There would be no point in Papias making such a statement if it was clearly stated in the original text that Matthew wrote the Gospel.

Oz

Works consulted
McKnight, S 1992. Matthew, Gospel of, in Green, J B; McKnight, S; Marshall, I H (eds), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 526-541. Downers Grove, Illinois / Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press.


 
Where are you going with this "original text" statement?

tob

Please respond to the content of what I wrote. From where do we obtain the evidence that Matthew wrote 'The Gospel according to Matthew'? Was it stated in the first document that Matthew wrote - the original text?

Oz
 
When did you find it necessary to have evidence to believe Gods word, I've been reading the same bible for over 40 years and have never doubted its contents..

tob
 
When did you find it necessary to have evidence to believe Gods word, I've been reading the same bible for over 40 years and have never doubted its contents..

tob

'The Gospel according to Matthew' is not in the original text of God's Word. We receive that understanding from the tradition handed down to us from Papias.

You can 'never doubt its contents', as I do, but we have to be truthful about the 'contents'. The title, 'The Gospel according to Matthew', is not in the contents of God's word. We have to be careful not to attribute to Scripture what is not there in the original text. We know from Papias's statement that the people of his day were unsure who wrote Matthew. The text obviously didn't say so, but he knew from other sources that the original was written by Matthew in Hebrew or Aramaic.

I've believed God's word for 53 years, but my study of Scripture and its background has helped me to learn that the title, 'The Gospel according to Matthew', is from Papias. That does not make the content of the Gospel any less authentic.

Oz
 
i don't put much stake in what Papias ha to say

Papias also related a tale on the grotesque fate of Judas Iscariot:[44]

Judas did not die by hanging[45] but lived on, having been cut down before he choked to death. Indeed, the Acts of the Apostles makes this clear: Falling headlong he burst open in the middle and his intestines spilled out.[46] Papias, the disciple of John, recounts this more clearly in the fourth book of the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord, as follows:

Judas was a terrible, walking example of ungodliness in this world, his flesh so bloated that he was not able to pass through a place where a wagon passes easily, not even his bloated head by itself. For his eyelids, they say, were so swollen that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen, even by a doctor using an optical instrument, so far had they sunk below the outer surface. His genitals appeared more loathsome and larger than anyone else's, and when he relieved himself there passed through it pus and worms from every part of his body, much to his shame. After much agony and punishment, they say, he finally died in his own place, and because of the stench the area is deserted and uninhabitable even now; in fact, to this day one cannot pass that place without holding one's nose, so great was the discharge from his body, and so far did it spread over the ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papius_of_Hierapolis

tob​
 
i don't put much stake in what Papias ha to say

Papias also related a tale on the grotesque fate of Judas Iscariot:[44]

Judas did not die by hanging[45] but lived on, having been cut down before he choked to death. Indeed, the Acts of the Apostles makes this clear: Falling headlong he burst open in the middle and his intestines spilled out.[46] Papias, the disciple of John, recounts this more clearly in the fourth book of the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord, as follows:

Judas was a terrible, walking example of ungodliness in this world, his flesh so bloated that he was not able to pass through a place where a wagon passes easily, not even his bloated head by itself. For his eyelids, they say, were so swollen that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen, even by a doctor using an optical instrument, so far had they sunk below the outer surface. His genitals appeared more loathsome and larger than anyone else's, and when he relieved himself there passed through it pus and worms from every part of his body, much to his shame. After much agony and punishment, they say, he finally died in his own place, and because of the stench the area is deserted and uninhabitable even now; in fact, to this day one cannot pass that place without holding one's nose, so great was the discharge from his body, and so far did it spread over the ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papius_of_Hierapolis

tob​
tob,

You don't like Papias as a source and then you reference with a link to Wikipedia. What a paradox! If you are interested in serious research (as I am), you wouldn't be going to Wikipedia.

Now let's get back to the issue I was dealing with. There is no evidence that 'The Gospel according to Matthew' is in the original text. It has been added according to tradition. It may be true, but the fact remains that it is not in the original text as Papias affirms. What Papias said was considered to be reliable enough to be confirmed by the ancient church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. AD 265-339). He included this information in his Ecclesiastical History.

Oz
 
That wasn't the first time I've seen that statement, this guy is just some guy with some ideas that i don't agree with, the one about Judas is just one, if there's one then it stands to reason there are probably others, this idea disagrees with scripture, therefore i disagree with him..

tob
 
Back
Top