J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Indeed Luke is not a first hand but he interview those who were there.
- Status
P
PNEUMA
Guest
A first hand account (John) could have been written later then the second hand account (Mark)
Another thing Mark doesn’t seem to be born again (spiritual baptized)
T
TimothyH
Guest
Matthew is a first hand account. Matthew was an Apostle, chosen by Jesus himself.
He was there when Jesus was baptized and was there when Jesus ascended to Heaven. The whole time.
-Tim-
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Just because tradition came earlier doesn’t make it better. For example, the first person to mention gospels that he claims were written by Matthew and Mark was Papias, but he seems not to have been held in high regard. According to Eusebius in his Church History, Papias was “a man of exceedingly small intelligence” (3.39).
Papias also tells a story about how Judas died, supposedly from one of his reliable sources. He says that after Judas betrayed Jesus, he was punished so that his body swelled up to such an enormous size that he could not even squeeze onto a street with buildings on either side and that not even his head would fit. His genitals swelled up and emitted pus and worms and then he died on his own land where his innards spilled out. Papias claims that even in his own day more than a century later, the stench was so great that people would have to hold their noses when they walked by this field (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Before the Gospels, p. 29). This story about Judas is hardly believable, so everything in tradition is not all that reliable.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
What parts of tradition do you find reliable?
Your profile says “Lutheran,” but there are “stories" about Luther that depict his character as questionable. That doesn’t seem to stop you from affiliating with him, does it?
On the other hand if the story of Judas is “hardly believable,” I suppose you also have problems with the stories of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, performing miraculous healings, turning water into wine, and so forth, which would make the story about Judas seem downright unexceptional by comparison.
What about the OT miracles such as crossing the Red Sea or manna in the desert? Again unbelievable?
So let’s get clear about this, then. The God who created the universe and all that exists within it, according to where you seem to be going with this, could not possibly have the power or know-how to carry out miraculous acts?
As for Papias, perhaps he was using hyperbole?
*
People who don’t understand hyperbole should be drawn, quartered, and left for the ravens.
A century later, the stench from their remains will be so great that those walking by will have to hold their noses. *
Perhaps Eusebius lacked imagination and a sense of humour? Not that I am trying to disparage the dead, but there are other ways of explaining or reading things.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It appears that Eusebius was about the only one who didn’t hold St. Papias in “high regard” and that wasn’t because of the story of Judas but because St. Papias, according to Eusebius, shared what Eusebius considered to be the chiliastic views of St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus. Unfortunately, we have nothing to base that claim upon except Eusebius since none of the writings of St. Papias survive except in fragment form quoted by other writers. So St. Papias can’t really defend himself from Eusebius’ claims and disparagement now, can he?
Papias seems to have been held in sufficiently high regard that he was considered a saint by the early Church. Not so with Eusebius. Perhaps he shouldn’t have spent so much effort or so many words bad-mouthing Papias. A lesson, I suppose, for all of us.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
He obviously wasn’t held in sufficient regard so that lots of copies of his work were made and it was preserved in more than the scattered quotes we have now.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Strange that Ehrman would accept claims about what Papias wrote solely based upon the writings of Eusebius who clearly wasn’t prone to write about Papias without editorializing or picking bones.
Also strange that you would equate a hearsay story about Papias told by Eusebius with “tradition” and then appear to further claim that “everything in tradition is not all that reliable,” as if your definition of “tradition" is anything like what the Church considers to be Tradition.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Yeah well that is synoymous with Peter’s description of Judas’ death in Acts 1.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Quite the contrary, actually.
You do understand that in the persecution of the early Church by Diocletian, a great number of Christian writings and copies of the Scriptures were turned over to Roman authorities and destroyed. That would mean the works of those Christians held in highest regard could very likely have been among the works destroyed.
Eusebius lived before, during and after that persecution, which means he likely could have had access to the writings of Papias during his early years, which is why he quoted from them, but not after the persecution, if that is when they were destroyed.
Some have made the claim that Eusebius, himself, may have had something to do with having them destroyed since he had the inclination to not want Papias’ work to influence others. I am not claiming that is so, but it certainly is as warranted as trusting Eusebius’ negative opinion of Papias as a true representation of him.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Well, then, if what we read in the gospel of John is hyperbole or if it is to be taken in a figurative sense, then I guess we really don’t have certainty about the scenes which appear in John but not in the Synoptic gospels.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
That was a reference to a story alleged to have been written by Papias and has nothing to do with the Gospel of John.
By the way, Jesus used hyperbole as well.
What do you think “If your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away,” is?
And this is from Matthew… a Synoptic Gospel… using hyperbole. Think about it.
Or are you insisting that God, too, must be a literalist fundamentalist with no sense of humour?:hey_bud:
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
What else makes a point more certain than using hyperbole?
Isn’t that the whole point of using hyperbole?
I repeat…
People who don’t understand hyperbole should be drawn, quartered, and left for the ravens.
twitter.com/ChrchCurmudgeon/status/711405111512137728
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Personally, I am opposed to torturing people like that and then murdering them. I don’t believe it would be charitable to do so, and IMHO, charity is the primary virtue.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
in the case of the Polynesian culture, sticking out your tongue is a universal gesture to look more savage. I agree that your demand that “People who don’t understand hyperbole should be drawn, quartered, and left for the ravens” is, in addition to being against Christian charity, is a rather savage one, since it involves torturing and murdering people who you take to be somewhat disagreeable since they do not understand your perspective on hyperbole.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
This isn’t the Polynesian culture.
The tongue gesture was more to to say, “You have got to be kidding,” or “Surely, you jest,” or “You aren’t being serious are you?” Either you are being serious or you are trying to carry a “straight face” or “straight lace” to an outrageous level, which is kind of funny, in itself.
If not, perhaps that you can’t separate the current culture from the Polynesian one might just be the kind of thing happening when you can’t seem to separate your approach to Scripture from the Middle Eastern one of 2000 years ago.
Perhaps you are “reading into” the tongue gesture what you suppose is there just as you “read into” Scripture what you suppose or want to be there, even to dismiss it.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Using sacred images in a mocking or joking way isn’t right.
-Tim-
-Tim-
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Where was that done?
P
PJM
Guest
My friend, you lack a true and complete understanding of the Nature of God
The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit share both equally and in-total the One Same and Perfect Nature. It like the Trinity [3 in 1] are Divine Mysteries:thumbsup:
John 10:30
I and the Father are one.
They ARE co-equal and co-Eternal
Easter Blessings,
PJM
- Status