Having addressed the essential point of your argument, mazaje, there are a few questions I would like you to think through carefully. In reference to your assertion in (c) below -

(c) 'matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person'

. . it is clear that such an assertion is inconsequential. You cannot make categorical statements about what people "will" and "will not" do and leave it at that, otherwise your assertion falls into what literary scholars call an "ipse dixit" (an unsupported dogmatic assertion). Indeed, there is nothing wrong with Matthew (or any other author) to have referred to himself (or herself) in the 3rd person (we already noted that Julius Caesar did this in 40 - 50s BC). But the questions I have for you are these:

[list][li]Have you personally known the author or Matthew himself in order to ascertain what they "will" and "will not" do?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Did you show any sound basis for your 'ipse dixit' statement, or you're just basing it on a personal preference without any scholarship at all?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Have you carefully considered the literary styles of writers around the time of the Gospels before asserting what you did?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Did you expose your own dogmatic statement to criticism of any literary scholarship?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Is it impossible for any author (past or contemporary) to have referred to himself in the third person?[/li][/list]

[list][li]On what basis (if any) do scholars argue that authorship of any document is impossible where the author refers to himself in the third person?[/li][/list]

[list][li]On what scholarly grounds do you argue that 'Matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person'?[/li][/list]

[list][li]What do you say about clear examples of authors in early centuries and contemporary times that are well known to have referred to themselves in the 3rd person, mazaje?[/li][/list]

Those are certainly not the only questions to necessarily ask when making your own argument in this regard. But it is obvious you did not think through your assertions carefully before dogmatically parroting them. When people make the mistake you did in matters like this, they immediately resort to the weaker excuse that there is "no meaning" in these well-known literary tools of analyses that scholars employ in their researches.

Thank you for your attempts.

Now Chris. . here are my views on the questions you had asked. They all border on just about the same concerns, but I shall take them individually:

Chrisbenogor:

3. What do you make of the story of creation in the book of genesis, many schools of thoughts are out there as to how to take genesis, some say symbolic others say otherwise.

First, I believe in Creation - and there are many questions I ask myself concerning that, which evolution or any theory in naturalism does not answer at all.

Second, I understand there are several schools of interpretations for the creation narratives in Genesis. Some take it literally, where we have a universe as young as between 6,000 - 10,000 years old; others interpret it as merely allegorical in order to accommodate discoveries that fault the 6,000-year interpretation.

However, my view is quite different. I don't know if I'm the only one within my geographic space who sees things this way, but below is a summary of my persuasions:

[list](a) God created the world and all things in them

(b) The universe is much older than 6,000 or 10,000 years

(c) Adam is not the very first being on earth - there were other beings closely in semblance to homo sapiens that predate Adam.

(d) Within Genesis itself, creation is far more older than a literal 6 days of 24hrs; and there was a much older epoch than the 6 days narratives given in the first chapter.[/list]

Like I said right from the first page, many Christians and religious people may be uncomfortable with my views - and that's okay with me. I only ask them to bear in mind that these are my views alone and do not bear a stamp of authority for anyone else. We can discuss them rather than go ballistic.

(a) Do you agree with the school of thought that say the earth is just a couple of thousand years old?

Nope; see my observation in (b) and (d) above.

(b) What is your stand on evolution, is it as a result of faith or having examined the evidence?

I'm not a fan of Darwinism and I take nothing in that respect on faith. I believe we can all think for ourselves and are free to disagree with the "establishment".

(c) If there was irrefutable evidence that man did evolve how would that affect your faith?

It would not affect my faith adversely.

hmmmmm Everything is going just great so far lets take a little detour anyway
Detour 1. What do you think is the most overwhelming evidence for the existence of God? What is it you I for instance should be able to see?

^^^ The major one for me is creation.

Why should I take the biblical creation story as the truth? Is there some sort of evidence I am missing?

^^^Nobody forces anyone to do so.

However, arguments aside, what sort of evidence is there for a universe that was not created? That is not a question for you to answer (since I said earlier that 'there are many questions I ask myself concerning that'). What amazes me is that outside of the Bible, existence is something which many enquirers are seeking answers to - whether in philosophy, the natural sciences, or other world views. If someone has made up their mind that they don't want to take the Biblical account of creation, does it rule out all questions about the fact that the universe did not spring into existence on its own? That has been a second question I've always asked myself.

'whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers' Quran 3:85

If i may interject here.

First on God and Creation (raised above by Chris - You all know this to be my favourite subject); and next on the authourship of the gospels.

I was watching one of my favourite channels earlier today (Nat Geo Wild) and a haunting set of scenes of fabulous creatures and unspeakably beautiful landscapes caught my attention. It occured to me in respect of our endless discussions on the existence of God that some people can look at the world around them, and immediately perceive that there is "something more" to all this wonder. They do not need Deep Sights mathematical (or incoherent?)deductions to perceive that.

Some others cannot perceive that there needs to be "anything more" to all this. For me personally, that is quite difficult to digest, given that a meaningless collective existence will be the direct and natural result of a reality founded on a quality such as chance for example.

Nevertheless that is going too far: let me simply state in very native terms that when a child comes upon a pot of soup even within an empty and abandoned space such as a desert, most children will conclude that it was cooked by somebody: a few stubborn or flighty ones may insist that it did not need a cook to exist. As far fetched as it may be to state such, it is not as far fetched as stating that it did not have a reason or purpose for existing. In very crude terms, this is the "Atheists Riddle." The law of Cause and Effect.

It beggars belief that the Atheist is yet to apprehend the philosophical issue contained in this simple question: why does anything exist at all? Why not non-existence? Why existence as opposed to non-existence?

Again they fail to grasp the fact that the very fact of existence, must presuppose purpose or a meaning of something, and therefore of all things.

But i apologise Chris. I needn't have gone into all this again. You know the subject is too tempting for me, but let me leave off for now.

VIARO: On the authourship of the gospels: could it be useful to consider the likely dates of such authourship and juxtapose this against the likely age of such apostles at that time? Also a consideration of the literary styles? See this Wiki Extract -

A gospel (from Old English, gōd spell "good news" is a writing that describes the life of Jesus. The word is primarily used to refer to the four canonical gospels: the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke and Gospel of John, probably written between AD 65 and 80. [1][2] They appear to have been originally untitled; they were quoted anonymously in the first half of the second century (i.e. 100 - 150) but the names by which they are currently known appear suddenly around the year 180.[3]

The first canonical gospel written is thought by most scholars to be Mark (c 65-70), which was according to the majority used as a source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke.[2] In modern source criticism, Matthew and Luke are generally thought to have used a common source, the Q document,[2] These first three gospels are called the synoptic gospels because they share similar incidents, teachings, and even much language.[2] The last gospel, the Gospel of John, presents a very different picture of Jesus and his ministry from the synoptics.[2] In differentiating history from invention, historians interpret the gospel accounts skeptically.[4] The synoptic evangelists demonstrated reserve in altering or inventing stories about Jesus, and historians regard the synoptic gospels as including significant amounts of historically reliable information about Jesus.[4] Scholars[who?] maintain that the gospels and all the books of the New Testament were written in Greek, see also Greek primacy.

The synoptic gospels are the source of many popular stories, parables, and sermons, such as Jesus' humble birth in Bethlehem, the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, the Last Supper, and the Great Commission. John provides a theological description of Jesus as the eternal Word, the unique savior of humanity. All four attest to his Sonship, miraculous power, crucifixion, and resurrection. Portions of the gospels are traditionally read aloud during church services as a formal part of the liturgy.

More generally, gospels compose a genre of early Christian literature.[5] Gospels that did not become canonical likely also circulated in early Christianity. Some, such as the Gospel of Thomas, lack the narrative framework typical of a gospel.[6] These gospels appeared later than the canonical gospels, and in the case of Thomas, after the Bible was officially cannonized.

Origin of the canonical gospels

The dominant view today is that Mark is the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that Gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars 'Q' (from German: Quelle, meaning "source". This view is known as the "Two-Source Hypothesis". [10].John was written last and shares little with the synoptic gospels.

The gospels were apparently composed in stages. Mark's traditional ending (Mark 16:9-20) was most likely composed early in the second century and appended to Mark in the middle of that century.[11] The birth and infancy narratives apparently developed late in the tradition.[12] Luke and Matthew may have originally appeared without their first two chapters.[12]

The general consensus among biblical scholars is that all four canonical gospels were originally written in Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman Orient.

Dating
Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the consensus or majority view as follows:

Mark: c. 68–73,[13] c 65-70[2]
Matthew: c. 70–100.[13] c 80-85.[2] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[13], c 80-85[2]
John: c 90-100,[2] c. 90–110,[14] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

'whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers' Quran 3:85

deep sight 
My stand on that matter is simple, there is no support for your claims, eish a lion was eating a gazelle, it had to feed!
If I were God I would have created a way to make sure my animals got food heck they might all just have regenerative systems that did not require anything  that's an interesting thread I had created before I will go resurrect it.

viaro:

^^^Nobody forces anyone to do so.

However, arguments aside, what sort of evidence is there for a universe that was not created? That is not a question for you to answer (since I said earlier that 'there are many questions I ask myself concerning that'). What amazes me is that outside of the Bible, existence is something which many enquirers are seeking answers to - whether in philosophy, the natural sciences, or other world views. If someone has made up their mind that they don't want to take the Biblical account of creation, does it rule out all questions about the fact that the universe did not spring into existence on its own? That has been a second question I've always asked myself.

Its not about force, just you pointing out something to me no?
Moving on now
4. Salvation, who will be saved , who will not?

Chris, i am soon going to retire from the business of proving the existence of God on NL. I am certain enough has been said already. Maybe i will become Pastor BIO.

Reflect:

Deep Sight:


It beggars belief that the Atheist is yet to apprehend the philosophical issue contained in this simple question: why does anything exist at all? Why not non-existence? Why existence as opposed to non-existence?

Allah is great,

Deep Sight pally! Thou temptest me with the savour of thy broth, and lo thy bread still reveals some cause and effect to tempt for more!

_{Okay, just a poor attempt on ye ol' yinglish!}

I enjoyed your musings on the issue of creation and existence. . and I'm tempted to go progress our other threads a bit more. Patience.

As regards your enquiry:

Deep Sight:

VIARO: On the authourship of the gospels: could it be useful to consider the likely dates of such authourship and juxtapose this against the likely age of such apostles at that time? Also a consideration of the literary styles? See this Wiki Extract -

Yes, it could be useful, and a whole lot of interesting findings may result therefrom. The Wiki extract is interesting (as are Krayola's notes earlier). However, we should always bear in mind that as far back as post #25 I made the observation about literary criticism and quipped that, after applying any one of those literary criticisms, you will find your own results are contradicting every set of initial conclusions. And this is one thing I see in the extract above already. Here:

The dominant view today is that Mark is the first Gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that Gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars 'Q' (from German: Quelle, meaning "source". This view is known as the "Two-Source Hypothesis". [10].John was written last and shares little with the synoptic gospels.

There are several theories and hypothesis in textual criticisms making the rounds about the canonical Gospels. The 'Two Source Hypothesis' (2SH) being one as in that quoted excerpt, and others such as the 'Marcan Priority' and the Griesbach hypothesis' (which was proposed as an alternative to the former two hypotheses). What is interesting is that these various theories yield a few similar inferences, but quite varying conclusions. While such criticisms may be useful to critics for whatever they're seeking, their conclusions do not have an overall conclusion on the matter.

Another point to note is that, it is true that some of the Gospel narratives are actually sourced from other material or sources. Although many traditional and fundamentalists groups feverishly argue that is impossible, such arguments are not what viaro holds. An example is Luke's Gospel - I do not need any of the prevailing hypotheses (2SH, Griesback or Marcian) to see that Luke 1:1-3 clearly indicates that the author gathered his information from various sources:

[list]'Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,'[/list]

The thing is that many people propound theory to find out what sources exactly had informed the Gospel writers - Matthew, mark, Luke and John - as well other gospels that did not survive canonicity.

That is not all, but -

The synoptic evangelists demonstrated reserve in altering or inventing stories about Jesus, and historians regard the synoptic gospels as including significant amounts of historically reliable information about Jesus.[4] Scholars[who?] maintain that the gospels and all the books of the New Testament were written in Greek, see also Greek primacy.

The above highlights another problem I hinted about in post #25 about literary criticisms. The point should always be kept in mind that any particular type of textual criticism applied to studying ANY document will yield very diverse and contradictory sets of inferences. Here in the quote above, while I'm happy to read that some have made efforts to present "significant amounts of historically reliable information about Jesus", it saddens me to note other misleading assertions in that excerpt:

[list](a)  'Scholars[^who?] maintain that the gospels and all the books of the New Testament were written in Greek'[/list]

I have serious problems with that assertion. . and that is why I'm glad to see a radical question ['who'] after 'scholars'. Just who are these "scholars"? We kow that assertion is wrong by a mile, because Matthew is reputed to have been written in HEBREW while the other manuscripts of the same Matthew's Gospel are translations into Greek!

This was why I noted earlier on in this thread that Chris was right about me - I don't take anything at face value, nor would I even rationalize anything. At best, if I don't know, I simply don't know. At worst, I would be tacitly condoning an outright lie to nod to false assertions.

On the whole, Deep Sight, again those are just my views and do not hold authority for other Christians.

Deep Sight:

Chris, i am soon going to retire from the business of proving the existence of God on NL. I am certain enough has been said already. Maybe i will become Pastor BIO.

hahaha!! You, my guy, are very, very funny!

Chrisbenogor:

Its not about force, just you pointing out something to me no?

No, it's not about force. Sorry if I unwittingly sounded otherwise.

4. Salvation, who will be saved , who will not?

I think I briefly answered that question in post #8? Question #2 in that post.

'there is no compulsion in religion, verily the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.


Whoever disbelieves in other gods and believe in Allah then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break.

And Allah is All Hearer and All Knower'
Quran 2:256

viaro:

Having addressed the essential point of your argument, mazaje, there are a few questions I would like you to think through carefully. In reference to your assertion in (c) below -

(c) 'matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person'

. . it is clear that such an assertion is inconsequential. You cannot make categorical statements about what people "will" and "will not" do and leave it at that, otherwise your assertion falls into what literary scholars call an "ipse dixit" (an unsupported dogmatic assertion). Indeed, there is nothing wrong with Matthew (or any other author) to have referred to himself (or herself) in the 3rd person (we already noted that Julius Caesar did this in 40 - 50s BC). But the questions I have for you are these:

OK I accept that I erred. . . . I have never came across any non fictional writing from the first centuary where the author addressed himself in the 3rd person. . . . .

[list][li]Have you personally known the author or Matthew himself in order to ascertain what they "will" and "will not" do?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Did you show any sound basis for your 'ipse dixit' statement, or you're just basing it on a personal preference without any scholarship at all?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Have you carefully considered the literary styles of writers around the time of the Gospels before asserting what you did?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Did you expose your own dogmatic statement to criticism of any literary scholarship?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Is it impossible for any author (past or contemporary) to have referred to himself in the third person?[/li][/list]

[list][li]On what basis (if any) do scholars argue that authorship of any document is impossible where the author refers to himself in the third person?[/li][/list]

[list][li]On what scholarly grounds do you argue that 'Matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person'?[/li][/list]

[list][li]What do you say about clear examples of authors in early centuries and contemporary times that are well known to have referred to themselves in the 3rd person, mazaje?[/li][/list]

Those are certainly not the only questions to necessarily ask when making your own argument in this regard. But it is obvious you did not think through your assertions carefully before dogmatically parroting them. When people make the mistake you did in matters like this, they immediately resort to the weaker excuse that there is "no meaning" in these well-known literary tools of analyses that scholars employ in their researches.

Thank you for your attempts.

If you re-read my post again. . . I said that mathew could not have written the gospel because of the three reasons I stated. . .

1. The entire gospel was written in 3rd person narrative
2. The author of the document did not state who he was, the document was anonymously written
3. The document was attributed to matthew by some one else long after the document was written. . .The gospel was attributed to mathew by papias in 120CE very long after it was written. . . . .

Even at that time authors used to claim authorship of their work but that is not the case with the gospels. . . .Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus,Philo,Justus of Tiberia etc all wrote documents and claimed authorship. . .even Julius Caesar claimed authorship in the Commentarii de Bello Gallico. . . .

I noticed that of all the points I made you were more interested in refuting the 3rd hand account declaration I made. . . .but that still does not help you in any way at all. . . .You did very well by providing evidence to show that people used to write narrative accounts in 3rd person but how does that show that matthew really wrote the gospel attributed to him? You also have never meet matthew, you only have an anonymous document that was later attributed to his name long after the document was written so, what evidence do you have to show that matthew  actually wrote the gospel attributed to him by papias? Any evidence from the document  itself to help you with that? What you need to know is that even at that time people use to claim authorship of their work. . . .

viaro:



[list](a)  'Scholars[^who?] maintain that the gospels and all the books of the New Testament were written in Greek'[/list]

I have serious problems with that assertion. . and that is why I'm glad to see a radical question ['who'] after 'scholars'. Just who are these "scholars"? We kow that assertion is wrong by a mile, because Matthew is reputed to have been written in HEBREW while the other manuscripts of the same Matthew's Gospel are translations into Greek!

It has been argued that that all the gospels were originally written in greek. . . .

The first reference to the Hebrew text written by the disciple Matthew comes from Papias (bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor fl. first half of the second century). Papias starts by discussing the origin of the Gospel of Mark, and then further remarks that "Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew tongue and each one interpreted them as he was able". According to Ehrman this is not a reference to the canonical gospel, since the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew.[3] The interpretation of the above quote from Papias depends on the meaning of the term logia. The term literally means "oracles", but the intended meaning by Papias has been controversial. [3][17][18]

Apart from Papias' comment, we do not hear about the author of the Gospel until Irenaeus around 185 who remarks that Matthew also issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews in their own language while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church. [19][20]

Pantaenus, Origen and other Early Church Fathers also believed Matthew wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews. [3][21][22] Finally, not one of the Church Fathers asserted that Matthew wrote the Greek Gospel found in the Bible. [23]

Wikipedia

Papias talks about a logia written by matthew in the hebrew language but some scholars have said that is different to the gospel written in the new testament because the gospel of matthew that is in the new testament was originally written in greek. . . .I do not know what to make of it all but your assertion that matthew was reputed to be written in hebrew does not hold any water either since no strong strong case has been made for it beside the citation from papias. . .

@mazaje,

mazaje:

OK I accept that I erred. . . . I have never came across any non fictional writing from the first centuary where the author addressed himself in the 3rd person. . . . .

If you re-read my post again. . . I said that mathew could not have written the gospel because of the three reasons I stated. . .

1. The entire gospel was written in 3rd person narrative
2. The author of the document did not state who he was, the document was anonymously written
3. The document was attributed to matthew by some one else long after the document was written. . .The gospel was attributed to mathew by papias in 120CE very long after it was written. . . . .

Even at that time authors used to claim authorship of their work but that is not the case with the gospels. . . .Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus,Philo,Justus of Tiberia etc all wrote documents and claimed authorship. . .even Julius Caesar claimed authorship in the Commentarii de Bello Gallico. . . .

I noticed that of all the points I made you were more interested in refuting the 3rd hand account declaration I made. . . .but that still does not help you in any way at all. . . .You did very well by providing evidence to show that people used to write narrative accounts in 3rd person but how does that show that matthew really wrote the gospel attributed to him? You also have never meet matthew, you only have an anonymous document that was later attributed to his name long after the document was written so, what evidence do you have to show that matthew  actually wrote the gospel attributed to him by papias? Any evidence from the document  itself to help you with that? What you need to know is that even at that time people use to claim authorship of their work. . . .

True, I examined your assertions denying the authorship of Matthew's Gospel on the basis of your three postulations, mainly because it of illeism. Nothing more than that. Your recent remarks are still founded on that same point and nothing more, and it would not be helpful for me to repeat my answers in other words. The "third person" reference, however you may argue it, is not cogent enough to form the substance of authorship of any document - even where the author does not explicitly introduce himself in that document. This was why I hinted that you make a simple check of illeism online and you will find a plethora of such works where authors make use of that literary style without even directly introducing themselves. I am not trying to force Matthew into the Gospel that bears his name; but the basis for your arguments do not hold, and that was what I have demonstrated.

viaro:

@mazaje,

True, I examined your assertions denying the authorship of Matthew's Gospel on the basis of your three postulations, mainly because it of illeism. Nothing more than that. Your recent remarks are still founded on that same point and nothing more, and it would not be helpful for me to repeat my answers in other words. The "third person" reference, however you may argue it, is not cogent enough to form the substance of authorship of any document - even where the author does not explicitly introduce himself in that document. This was why I hinted that you make a simple check of illeism online and you will find a plethora of such works where authors make use of that literary style without even directly introducing themselves. I am not trying to force Matthew into the Gospel that bears his name; but the basis for your arguments do not hold, and that was what I have demonstrated.

Ok fair enough. . . .Point noted. . .

Most of us went astray without knowing and we paid(and some are still) dearly for it.

The bible is a good book originally meant and written for present and future israelites with an intention.

As a result of the increase in understanding and the resulting diversification of cultures,languages,politics,goverments,technology,commerce,religions,etc and later the colonisation of Africa by the western world, the bible was introduced to us.

But we forgot one thing:we were once a people governed by our own internally designed laws within an organised society.Secondly,we recognised and we believe in the presence of a supernatural being(God) within our society which is manifested in various forms in our culture.

Historically speaking,the Israelites on various occasion left their own traditional ways and religion and practiced
foreign religions which they have little or no knowledge about and they were purnished for it untill they revert to their native law and custom and religion.

In a sense i seem to believe that our present 'problems' is not economic(corruption) or political as widely advertised daily in the various screamy headlines in nigerian newspapers,but because we have unknowingly left our natural ways which God gave us(NOT CHURCH) and right now we are confused because we are practising(FOREIGN RELIGIONS) which we KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

Unfortunately,it may take us a corresponding number of years we've spent practising foreign religion to recover even if we decide we have sinned and want to go back to our original ways.

http://www.mutualinterestsforum.com/

mazaje:

It has been argued that that all the gospels were originally written in greek. . . .

The first reference to the Hebrew text written by the disciple Matthew comes from Papias (bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor fl. first half of the second century). Papias starts by discussing the origin of the Gospel of Mark, and then further remarks that "Matthew composed the logia in the Hebrew tongue and each one interpreted them as he was able". According to Ehrman this is not a reference to the canonical gospel, since the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew.[3] The interpretation of the above quote from Papias depends on the meaning of the term logia. The term literally means "oracles", but the intended meaning by Papias has been controversial. [3][17][18]

Apart from Papias' comment, we do not hear about the author of the Gospel until Irenaeus around 185 who remarks that Matthew also issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews in their own language while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church. [19][20]

Pantaenus, Origen and other Early Church Fathers also believed Matthew wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews. [3][21][22] Finally, not one of the Church Fathers asserted that Matthew wrote the Greek Gospel found in the Bible. [23]

Wikipedia

Papias talks about a logia written by matthew in the hebrew language but some scholars have said that is different to the gospel written in the new testament because the gospel of matthew that is in the new testament was originally written in greek. . . .I  do not know what to make of it all but your assertion that matthew was reputed to be written in hebrew does not hold any water either since no strong strong case has been made for it beside the citation from papias. . .

Lol, mazaje, thank you for trying to show me all that stuff. They are not new to me, and I've perused them extensively before your attempt here. Nonetheless, I appreciate your help (at least, other readers could find them useful where they might not have come across them). There are more sources I could show you concerning those matters, and even where Bart Ehrman has been shown up for his shoddy scholarship - example, check TRIABLOGUE. .com (for easy to follow discussions on that).

The point is, I am well aware of Papias argument - and that is a moot point. My surprise was that some one could claim that the Gospels and ALL the NT were written in Greek. That is not true, and I wanted to see who these "scholars" were that could make such unqualified assertions. I'm sure the Wiki contributor may have had a hard time sourcing those scholars, which was why I was glad to see the [who?] inserted. Surely Papias did not claim that ALL the NT were written in Greek, did he? And outside of Papias, is it impossible that others understood the fact that not all the NT were thus written in Greek? I noted somewhere (post #23) in this thread that many people confuse a translation/version with a manuscript, and the Wiki source is just one example.

alex0026:

But we forgot one thing:we were once a people governed by our own internally designed laws within an organised society.Secondly,we recognised and we believe in the presence of a supernatural being(God) within our society which is manifested in various forms in our culture.

^^^Lol, who are the "we" in your postulation there?^^^

Do you care to elaborate on the highlighted in colour - "governed by our own internally designed laws within an organised society"? What "organised society" are you on about?

viaro:

Lol, mazaje, thank you for trying to show me all that stuff. They are not new to me, and I've perused them extensively before your attempt here. Nonetheless, I appreciate your help (at least, other readers could find them useful where they might not have come across them). There are more sources I could show you concerning those matters, and even where Bart Ehrman has been shown up for his shoddy scholarship - example, check TRIABLOGUE. .com (for easy to follow discussions on that).

I wasn't really trying to "show you" per say. . .I was just trying to make a case for my arguments. . . .

The point is, I am well aware of Papias argument - and that is a moot point. My surprise was that some one could claim that the Gospels and ALL the NT were written in Greek. That is not true, and I wanted to see who these "scholars" were that could make such unqualified assertions. I'm sure the Wiki contributor may have had a hard time sourcing those scholars, which was why I was glad to see the [who?] inserted. Surely Papias did not claim that ALL the NT were written in Greek, did he? And outside of Papias, is it impossible that others understood the fact that not all the NT were thus written in Greek? I noted somewhere (post #23) in this thread that many people confuse a translation/version with a manuscript, and the Wiki source is just one example.

The Papias argument is still valid and relevant because he was the first person to ascribe the document to matthew. . . .   weather the document(logia) he referred to and ascribed to matthew is the same document as the one that is in the new testament or not is not of importance to me personally. . . I am more interested in seeing the evidence that points to authorship or language of authorship outside the claim made by papias,  . . .hope you understand the point I am trying to make?

Please i would like to know from you the difference between the meaning of Allah in the arabic tradition as recorded in the Quran and Olorun(or Oluwa) in the yoruba tradition as recorded in oral tradition of the yorubas?

mazaje:

I wasn't really trying to "show you" per say. . .I was just trying to make a case for my arguments. . . .

That's okay - and my point is that I was not ignorant of the sources your drew for your arguments, which are unnecessary. They are unnecessary because the point at which you quoted my post to discuss was not about authorship, but rather about the language in which a certain document appears. I think you're missing that point in your arguments and confusing the platforms.

The Papias argument is still valid and relevant because he was the first person to ascribe the document to matthew. . . .   weather the document(logia) he referred to and ascribed to matthew is the same document as the one that is in the new testament or not is not of importance to me personally. . . I am more interested in seeing the evidence that points to authorship or language of authorship outside the claim made by papias,  . . .hope you understand the point I am trying to make?

I do understand your point, but please see again the highlighted in yours: is it -

      (a)  authorship; or

      (b)  language of authorship?

These two things are not the same. The language is a secondary point which was based on my observation of an example where people confuse manuscripts for version/translation - as in the Wiki excerpt. It has absolutely no cogent or substantial relevance to the former question of authorship.

Be that as it may, I'm quite aware that most of the works in that period do not have introductions identifying them specifically - Matthew's Gospel happens to be one. The same may be said of Luke's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, where the author identifies his recipient but not so much himself. It is in the Acts that critics gather their information to ascribe that document to a 'Luke the physician', even though I do not remember the author directly introducing himself.

The point is this: if you're going to make an argument that helps you believe that someone else wrote a particular document, your argument could either pass fo scholarly insight (in which case you apply the conventions of literary criticism or textual criticism); or otherwise fail to be convincing at any stretch (in which case you hold on to nothing other than "ipse dixit" statements). Now if you're going to help your arguments, it could not be based on "ipsedixitism" (as I have shown that is simply unconventional and froth with problems for your argument) - rather, you would have to show that, beyond the reference based on 3rd person narrative style, there is/are other reasons to identify that other author cogently rather than fictitiously.

alex0026:
Please i would like to know from you the difference between the meaning of Allah in the arabic tradition as recorded in the Quran and Olorun(or Oluwa) in the yoruba tradition as recorded in oral tradition of the yorubas?

As far as I know, they are NOT the same deities, nor do they have similar or identical modes of worship. You cannot mix them both into one singular model to arrive at a concept of "internally designed laws within an organised society". If you're convinced that there are no differences, that's fine and it's up to you to show how that they are the same.

viaro:


Be that as it may, I'm quite aware that most of the works in that period do not have introductions identifying them specifically - Matthew's Gospel happens to be one. The same may be said of Luke's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, where the author identifies his recipient but not so much himself. It is in the Acts that critics gather their information to ascribe that document to a 'Luke the physician', even though I do not remember the author directly introducing himself.

Why do you use the word MOST? LOL. . . do you have any evidence to show that most of the works in that period do not have the writers identifying themselves? Historical works even at that time typically had a table of contents, the authors of the works identified themselves, and they were written in a formal style. You can check The Wars of the Jews by Josephus(70CE), History of Rome written by the Roman historian Livy around 30 BCE, Tacitus the Histories 109 CE, The works of Pliny, Philo, Justus etc they all wrote in a formal style and identified themselves. . . .

Good Morning Viaro,  Hope you're well.  I'm easy here, easy like a sunday morning.

If you don't mind I'd like to press you further on alex 0026's question.

viaro:

As far as I know, they are NOT the same deities, nor do they have similar or identical modes of worship. You cannot mix them both into one singular model to arrive at a concept of "internally designed laws within an organised society".  If you're convinced that there are no differences, that's fine and it's up to you to show how that they are the same.

1)In your understanding of Esu in yoruba religious beliefs would you say that he was the same as Shaitan in the Quran, or satan in the christian understanding.  

2)  From what you might understand about Witchcraft (Aje) in yoruba belief would you say that the witches in the bible (suffer not a witch to live) are brought about by the same phenomena.

3)  From what you might understand of Canaanite religions would you say that El Elyon, high God of the Canaanites was the same El Elyon worshipped by the Jews and equated with Yahweh.

4)  From what you might understand of Canaanite religions would you say that the canaanite El Shaddai, a rather different deity from El Elyon, was the same as the Yahweh worshipped by the Jews.  

I'll come straight up and state my reasons for asking these questions.  I am afraid of the problem of Conflation and whether it can render one's beliefs invalid.

Hi again mazaje,

mazaje:

Why do you use the word MOST? LOL. . . do you have any evidence to show that most of the works in that period do not have the writers identifying themselves? Historical works even at that time typically had a table of contents, the authors of the works identified themselves, and they were written in a formal style. You can check The Wars of the Jews by Josephus(70CE), History of Rome written by the Roman historian Livy around 30 BCE, Tacitus the Histories 109 CE, The works of Pliny, Philo, Justus etc they all wrote in a formal style and identified themselves. . . .

Hehe, I apologise - I had over-reached myself in the use of the word "most". That said, the word was used in a broad sense without limiting myself to just Matthew's Gospel of the synoptic Gospels. I also hinted that might have been ("may be" the case with Luke's Gospel and the Acts; although I know that a plethora of other works evidently have intros to them. By the word "most", I do not mean "ALL".

Hallo Pastor AIO, glad to know you're doing well. I'm doing good and enjoying the day.

Pastor AIO:

If you don't mind I'd like to press you further on alex 0026's question.

No, I don't mind at all.

1)In your understanding of Esu in yoruba religious beliefs would you say that he was the same as Shaitan in the Quran, or satan in the christian understanding.

2)  From what you might understand about Witchcraft (Aje) in yoruba belief would you say that the witches in the bible (suffer not a witch to live) are brought about by the same phenomena.

To be honest with you, I don't know much about Yoruba beliefs and traditions. Rather than pretend anything here, I should confess my ignorance. It was only recently that I thought to look it up sometimes. .  I think after having read something about it mentioned in one of Deep Sight's posts in another thread. So, please forgive my vacancy at this moment, and I hope sometime in the future I'd be better able to make informed opinions on that and other issues.

3)  From what you might understand of Canaanite religions would you say that El Elyon, high God of the Canaanites was the same El Elyon worshipped by the Jews and equated with Yahweh.

4)  From what you might understand of Canaanite religions would you say that the canaanite El Shaddai, a rather different deity from El Elyon, was the same as the Yahweh worshipped by the Jews.

No, I would not say that. From my understanding, they are not the same, although in the languages and zeitgeist of people in that epoch, similar appellations may have been used for different deities. For example, Baal in one of such semitic languages happens to be 'Lord' (or 'owner', 'master' etc.) - and on that commonality, there are people who have no qualms assuming that name upon themselves and other people in positive ways rather than in diabolical sense. Some notable examples are Baal-hanan the son of Achbor (Gen. 36:38); and one of Joel's sons was named Baal (1 Chron. 5:4-5); and even contemporary times we know of "Baal Shem Tov", which is the name assumed by Israel Ben Eliezer, a Jewish mystical rabbi and the founder of Hasidic Judaism. The word 'baal' in that semitic language was simply understood as lord, owner or master, and may be used without particular attachment to diabolical interpretations.

Within the Jewish religion as recorded in the Bible, the Jews themselves might have been so influenced by the culture and languages of their neighbours that, it is most probable that they used the same name of "Baal" for the God of Israel whom they worshipped, --

        ^^. . And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi;
          and shalt call me no more Baali. [Hosea 2:16]

        ^^. . as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal  [Jeremiah 23:27]

_{** I should always leave a reminder of my disclaimer to other Christians and religious readers: please note that these are my views and do not constitute authority for anyone.}

I'll come straight up and state my reasons for asking these questions.  I am afraid of the problem of Conflation and whether it can render one's beliefs invalid.

I understand.

viaro:

Hi again mazaje,

Hehe, I apologise - I had over-reached myself in the use of the word "most". That said, the word was used in a broad sense without limiting myself to just Matthew's Gospel of the synoptic Gospels. I also hinted that might have been ("may be" the case with Luke's Gospel and the Acts; although I know that a plethora of other works evidently have intros to them. By the word "most", I do not mean "ALL".

No problelm at all. . . . .I shouldn't be asking you this because you werent the one that brought it up (davidylan brought it up). . . but I will still go ahead and ask you. . .

You accept that matthew wrote the gospel based on. . . . . . . . . . . ?

The tradition for authorship which began with papias or some other evidence you have to point to authorship outside of papias? I just want to know your position on that. . .