I can't imagine not believing in God. (page 26)

PSacramento

I have no idea. See? It's easy, I am not making claims with no proof and insisting we have to accept them

Plutarch, but the point was that we have only tradition to go on as to who wrote about whom in ancient history.

EntirelyPossible

Plutarch, but the point was that we have only tradition to go on as to who wrote about whom in ancient history.

OK. Are you also claiming that Plutarch wrote about the one true God we should all follow and is the creator and giver of life? If not, you are comparing apples and oranges.

tec

Good. Be sure, rather than defend your comments, to include others in the mud with you.

I did defend my comment. You seem to have overlooked. I am not repeating myself; so you can read again please, if you want to know what I said.

You are passing judgement on others. Trying to come up with loophole to get your out of that isn't flying.

I am not passing judgment. I am discerning; testing; examining... the very thing that so many claim that one SHOULD be doing.

Nope, you wrote that you heard that, only AFTER you started hanging with Shelby. You never showed where Christ said that. Not one single person started heard that name without shelby.

I was speaking about the statment that Christ made, as well as other apostles, regarding false teachers, prophets; those who thought they were Christian but whom Christ states that HE never knew them.

As to that name, I did show that there are many who have discerned quite similar pronunciations... as paul also stated above.... Yeshua, Yahshua, Jahshua, Joshua (that one is even written); Yehoshua.

Peace to you,

tammy

PSacramento

How could Matthew not be around for Matthew's conversion?

LOL< yes, in THAT regard you have a point, it may be the Mattew (proto-matthew) was written first, I really don't know.

The gospel named after Mark was written first. In this account we have a brief account of Matthew Levi's conversion.

There is some debate to that.

The gospel named after Matthew was written later. When the author came to describe Matthew's own conversion instead of giving a personal account he copied Mark's words.

Where did your critical thinking skills go?

Honestly I was speaking in general terms and not focusing on the specififc event ot Matthew's conversion, I should have been more clear and paid more attention to what you were askin in specififc.

Yes, there seems to be an issue there which MAY be resolved by Matthew or some version have been written first but that is specualtion.

tec

wow, the word 'evidence' used three times in one sentence, your claim...must be true.

This has nothing to do with anything, Still.

Peace,

tammy

PSacramento

OK. Are you also claiming that Plutarch wrote about the one true God we should all follow and is the creator and giver of life? If not, you are comparing apples and oranges.

I am speaking in a historical context in regards to whether we can use tradition as evidence as to who wrote what.

cofty

The answer is easy. Matthew did not write Matthew - that is obvious.

The author of Matthew copied amost ALL of the gospel of Mark, corrected some stuff, contradicted some stuff and added some more stuff.

It is a 100% human work.

EntirelyPossible

I am not passing judgment. I am discerning; testing; examining... the very thing that so many claim that one SHOULD be doing.

You are passing judgement. Using synonyms doesn't change that.

As to that name, I did show that there are many who have discerned quite similar pronunciations... as paul also stated above.... Yeshua, Yahshua, Jahshua, Joshua (that one is even written); Yehoshua.

That in no way changes that none of you started using that until you hung around with Shelby. And, the full name shelby uses is attributable only to her.

I did defend my comment. You seem to have overlooked. I am not repeating myself; so you can read again please, if you want to know what I said.

I in no way overlooked. I also pointed out that you are defeding what you claim you aren't doing by also attributing it to others.

EntirelyPossible

I am speaking in a historical context in regards to whether we can use tradition as evidence as to who wrote what.

Tradtion isn't evidence.

PSacramento

The answer is easy. Matthew did not write Matthew - that is obvious.

Perhaps but certianly NOT obvious.

The form of Matthew we have may have been based on an original or Matthew may have dicated His gospel to another who, knowing of the tradtion behind Mark, used that also.

The author of Matthew copied amost ALL of the gospel of Mark, corrected some stuff, contradicted some stuff and added some more stuff.

Sure, that is quite possible that, if Mark was written first, the writter of Matthew may have used the core tradtion and added and corrected according to the tradtion he was following ( Matthews).

It is a 100% human work.

All the bible is 100% human work.

I can't imagine not believing in God.

Share this