I'm not sure why anyone would waste time on Fitzsimmons and his ignorant rants. The only bright thing about him is that ridiculous bandana.

Sorry, cannot agree with the author anti-SSM rant using an aging anti-SSM spokesperson, able to hit a tennis ball remarkably well!

Sir, your barely veiled homophobic rant, visible for all and sundry to see, an attempt to re-prosecute the no case SSM plebiscite.

As seems your want? Using barely veiled hate speech in an endless campaign to re-prosecute the no case?

Sir, if Jesus walked among us today, you among equals, I believe, would treat him with his predilection for exclusive male company, his unmarried status, his gentle and kind nature as being gay? In all likelihood would oust him from a job as a teacher. For that is what he was?

It is said, he will return?

Perhaps he has already?

But you and your entire ilk are not looking for him or the things he taught? But rather the exercise of some self-imposed authority you think somehow you have!?

People are as the creator made them all of them!

But you and your ilk think that some passage written on ancient parchment may have been divinely inspired? It may not have been!

The evidence would seem to conclude, this passage may have been inserted later to have the writer's message conform to the social mores and cultural values of the time.

And not the fact that our genealogy very definitely decides our sexuality, not some bogus passage on ancient parchment so much of which has been both plagiarized and embellished with plagiarization and embellishment further plagiarising and embellishing the written word!

Which as you know to the illiterate and primitive folk who followed and believed in it without ever once, like you, unquestioning it!?

Why? Because the written word, fact and fiction alike had and for some, still is gospel! Regardless of credible scientific evidence to the contrary!

Stop trying to persecute folk for the sexuality they were born with! They are as entitled to the SEXUAL love of a partner as anyone else!

Where they find it is absolutely no concern of yours or someone able to hit a tennis ball, really, really well!
Alan B.

Alan B,

<<Sir, if Jesus walked among us today, you among equals, I believe, would treat him with his predilection for exclusive male company, his unmarried status, his gentle and kind nature as being gay? In all likelihood would oust him from a job as a teacher. For that is what he was? It is said, he will return? Perhaps he has already? >>

No matter what Christian article I write, you do not deal with its content but come up with your Christophobic content, which is 'intolerance of, hostility towards or discrimination against Christians' (The Macmillan Dictionary 2019. s.v. Christophobia), http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/christophobia.

Why don't you share briefly with us what has caused you to become Christophobic?

In the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:16-20), the fool thought he had more than enough time to enjoy life - whoop it up. God had news for him: "This very night your life will be demanded from you” (verse 20). We have today—we have the present moment—and we should use it wisely. "God said to him, ‘You fool! You will die this very night. Then who will get everything you worked for?'" (Luke 12:20), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12%3A20&version=NLT

God's word to you and all of us on this forum is: 'The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent' (2 Peter 3:9).

Alan, I pray that the Lord will soften your heart towards Him.

Spencer you really are becoming boring now. The arguments you present in your tideous tirades were put to the people. And you lost. You are in the minority. Get over it, build a bridge and get on with your life. Please.

Aries54,

<<Spencer you really are becoming boring now. The arguments you present in your tideous tirades were put to the people. And you lost. You are in the minority. Get over it, build a bridge and get on with your life. Please.>>

Please address the topic I wrote about.

"tideous tirades" should be "tedious tirades"

You have done nothing more than give me a Red Herring Fallacy. Here you have attempted to redirect the arguments I raised to what you want to talk about - slam me. You have avoided the issues I raised. You want me to abandon my original content. Yours is fallacious reasoning. We can't have a reasonable conversation when you resort to illogical reasoning. See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red_Herring

<<You are in the minority. Get over it>>

Again you use erroneous reasoning, a Hasty Generalization Fallacy: You draw a conclusion about me and other Christians on this forum - based on a small sample size. Instead of looking at Christian statistics in Australia, you chose your line of thinking, rather than dealing with the stats: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/100/Hasty_Generalization

You don't know the facts. The 2016 census concluded 'we’re a religiously diverse nation, with Christianity remaining the most common religion (52 per cent of the population)': http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/7E65A144540551D7CA258148000E2B85.

It's a joke when you claim 'you are in a minority'. That's factually FALSE.

I know of Christians who won't make comments on On Line Opinion because of the unreasonable, fallacious comments by people like you. You can't seem to handle it when I provide evidence in support of Christianity and you come back with an Ad Hominem response of 'tideous (sic) tirades'.

By the way, I don't use tirades in my writing. I attempt to get to the truth - that you don't like.

What is God's assessment of unbelievers in their relationship with Him? 'They can’t understand the truth. They are separated from the life of God. That’s because they don’t know him. And they don’t know him because their hearts are stubborn' (Ephesians 4:18).

"Get over it, build a bridge and get on with your life".

Somebody's been watching 'Brides and Prejudice'. They are the exact words utteree by the pompous, over-weight snob who was Victoria's mother.

People who are Christophobic are always the quickest to label others. That is why so many of the abc luvvies are quick to call people racist. They continually did it with Abbott despite the fact he gave of his own time to serve in aboriginal communities. They do it with anyone demanding facts for the gw myth, they do it with anyone who questions immigration rates or is in favour of legal immigration only. The left has stolen and perverted language often to hide their own perversions. The latest is transphobic. For the last 30 years it has been a 'crime' to be blackface. Now its ok for men to dress as women and promote their perversion to kids in libraries. Oh well with the left hypocrisy comes with the narrative.

Ah the weasal word christophobic has emerged from the swamp.

What does it Really mean or really refer to?
Does it have anything to do with Truth and Reality?

Especially as all of the ideas ABOUT Saint Jesus of Galilee were and are made by people who never ever met him up close and personal in a living-breathing-feeling human form.

And of course Jesus was never ever in any sense a christian

Never mind too that self-righteous christians have been persecuting and murdering non-believers and "heretics" ever since the "official" institutional church came into existence 1700 years ago.

The "official" institutional church is, by its very nature a "heresy" hunting, and thus "heretic" killing entity. How many countless millions of human corpses has it thus inevitably "created".

Never mind too that the entire western imperial/colonial project of blood-thirsty conquest was, and still is justified in the "name of 'Jesus'". This was of course inevitable when Constantine made christian-ism the official religion of the Roman state.

Onward christian soldiers (forever) marching into war.

Anyone who knows that medical science has virtually proven than homosexuality is a naturally occurring normal aberration just as natural as left-handedness is not a christophobe! Just an impartial observer!

And runner the last time I looked, preferring the commercial-free ABC wasn't a capital crime! Nor something that identified a commie an atheist or a left-leaning political enthusiast.

Mr Ozpen Sir, your only authority comes from hugely plagiarized and embellished works that were subjectively included and revised to fit a narrative that the pagan sun-worshipper Constatine could accept. And subject to numerous revisions and selective editing ever since.

Used by sword welding Bishops and the head of blood-soaked armies killing in the holy name of the holy of holies, Christianity. And what you rely on as your exclusive never ever questioned evidence to virtually prove sound peer-reviewed medical science incorrect. It doesn't and never ever will!

Please, please come out and fight the next election on it and privatizing the hated ABC! I double dare you! Put your money where your mouth is!

Simply going the verbal and labelling those you disagree with proves nothing other than the very obvious bigotry you and your bible bashing ilk rely on. And your only modus operandi?

We've had the SSM plebiscite and guess what? You and your redneck brothers lost! Get over it, it's done already!

You'll have a nice day now, y'hear.
Alan B.

Alan B,

<<Mr Ozpen Sir, your only authority comes from hugely plagiarized and embellished works that were subjectively included and revised to fit a narrative that the pagan sun-worshipper Constatine (sic) could accept. And subject to numerous revisions and selective editing ever since. >>

This your personal spin, not based on objective historical science. The Bible places your words in this category:

An honest witness tells the truth;
a false witness tells lies.

Some people make cutting remarks,
but the words of the wise bring healing.

Truthful words stand the test of time,
but lies are soon exposed (Proverbs 12:17-19), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Prov+12%3A17-19&version=NLT

You come up with your misleading words about the Bible because you do not have this foundation: 'Fear of the Lord is the foundation of wisdom. Knowledge of the Holy One results in good judgment' (Proverbs 9:10), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Prov+9%3A10&version=NLT

Fitz - Hello!

How is it that Islam can advocate this ?
https://youtu.be/Vm6t_so-YiQ

While Margaret Court is condemned for supporting male-female marriage.

Elizabeth4,

<<How is it that Islam can advocate this?
http://youtu.be/Vm6t_so-YiQ>>

I just checked and the article has been removed from YouTube for violation of code of practice.

Fitz

How about comparing this:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/homosexuality.aspx

with Margaret Court's support for male-female marriages.

.

Dear Spencer Gear (the author),

.

You wrote :

« She [Margaret Court] presents God's view of marriage between a man and a woman and not between two people of the same sex … Jesus confirmed the Genesis teaching in Matthew 19:4-6. A man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife »
.

Nobody knows what “God’s view” is – of anything – Spencer. Let’s not forget that God is still just a hypothesis that we are all free to believe or not.

Some people believe they have had visions of God. Some believe he has spoken to them. That is not the case of Matthew whom you quote.

Nobody knows for sure who the Matthew of the bible was. Nowhere does he claim to have been an eyewitness to the events that he describes. According to the historians, the gospel attributed to him seems to have been composed around the year 85 A.D., i.e., more than half a century after the death of Jesus.

The traditional ascription of the gospel to Matthew, the tax collector who became an apostle (one of the 12 chief disciples of Jesus), raises many questions. Why is the same tax collector named Levy son-of-Alphaeus in Mark 2:14 ? Where did a tax collector on the margin of Jewish religious life get such an extensive education to produce this very “Jewish” gospel ? Why did an apostle and companion of Jesus (if that is who he was) not make any mention or give the slightest hint of having been personally involved in the events of Jesus’ life ? Why did he rely on Mark and other sources rather than his own personal experience and memory ?

Those questions remain unanswered. Yet, many people, like yourself, Spencer, who believe in the god hypothesis, base their belief on narratives such as that of the mysterious and controversial Matthew.

According to the bible, God made man and woman. No mention of transgenders. Who made them and why ? There are about 850,000 transgenders in Australia (3.4% of the population) :

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6263-exactly-how-many-australians-are-gay-december-2014-201506020136

.

Elizabeth4,

That's an excellent link to how Muslims, following the Quran, receive capital punishment for their behaviour: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/homosexuality.aspx

When you post links like this that begin with https://www, please change to http://www so we can use a direct link to the website. It seems to be a feature of the software used on this website that this action is needed.

I recommend leading Christian apologist, Dr William Lane Craig's assessment, 'A Christian Perspective on Homosexuality' at: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/practical-issues/a-christian-perspective-on-homosexuality/#_ftnref4

Banjo P,

<<Nobody knows what “God’s view” is – of anything – Spencer. Let’s not forget that God is still just a hypothesis that we are all free to believe or not.>>

What a preposterous statement that is your untested opinion.

<<Those questions [about Matthew] remain unanswered. Yet, many people, like yourself, Spencer, who believe in the god hypothesis, base their belief on narratives such as that of the mysterious and controversial Matthew.>>

That is bunk. In my 1,600 book library, I have a number of scholarly books that deal with this issue. You are the one imposing your view on the biblical text. I know which one I'll pursue and it won't be Banjo P's presuppositions.

<<According to the bible, God made man and woman. No mention of transgenders. Who made them and why ? There are about 850,000 transgenders in Australia (3.4% of the population) >>

It doesn't seem to cross your mind that God got it right and sinful humanity got it wrong.

Since when did Roy Morgan research determine the truth of homosexuality and transgenders. It doesn't.

God's command to you, Banjo, and me is:

"Teach me your ways, O Lord,
that I may live according to your truth!
Grant me purity of heart,
so that I may honor you" (Psalm 86:11).

Rather than going to Roy Morgan research to determine the truth about sexuality, I recommend you seek this wisdom and knowledge: "Fear of the LORD is the foundation of wisdom. Knowledge of the Holy One results in good judgment" (Proverbs 9:10).

3.4 per cent trandgender? Sounds more like a planned parenthood target. Or do we throw in those practicing homosexuality as transgender.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

Referring to my comment that « nobody knows what “God’s view” is – of anything – Spencer. Let’s not forget that God is still just a hypothesis that we are all free to believe or not », you declared :

« What a preposterous statement that is your untested opinion »

You are right in thinking it is my opinion, OzSpen, but you are wrong in thinking it needs to be tested.

The rule in such matters, as I am sure you are aware, is “affaimanti non neganti incumbit” (the burden of proof lies on him who affirms, not on one who denies. I do not claim there is a god. My opinion does not need to be tested. It is the opinion of those who claim there is a god that needs to be tested.

That said, OzSpen, please be assured that I do not expect any “proof” from you. We have had this discussion on a previous thread – an extremely long discussion. Whenever I ask for evidence to back up your claims, you provide (faith-based) citations from the bible or quotations from evangelical theologists and scholars.

As I indicated before, those are your beliefs and your religious affiliations, OzSpen. They are not facts or evidence of facts.

Despite that difficulty, I respect your beliefs, but please do not expect me to share them. My mind always remains open on the question of the god hypothesis in the event that some objective element may come to light sometime in the future.

I hope this clarifies matters for you.

.

Dear Runner,

.

Thanks for your comment.

Yes, I should have said "transgenders and LGBTs".

Sorry about that.

.

Banjo P,

<<Nobody knows for sure who the Matthew of the bible was. Nowhere does he claim to have been an eyewitness to the events that he describes. According to the historians, the gospel attributed to him seems to have been composed around the year 85 A.D., i.e., more than half a century after the death of Jesus.>>

You have chosen to slam the Gospel of Matthew because I cited Jesus from Matthew 19:4-6. HOWEVER, the same message of heterosexual union is taught by the Apostle Paul in his writing to the Ephesians 5:31, 'A man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'. Don't forget it was taught first in Genesis 2:24, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen+2%3A24&version=ESVUK

Your ramblings about Matthew have nothing to do with the subject about which I wrote, so your comment is a Red Herring Fallacy of erroneous reasoning. See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red_Herring.

This means that by denigrating the Gospel of Matthew (which was not the topic of my article), you attempted to redirect our discussion to what you wanted to discuss. Yours was a deliberate diversion from my topic, with your intention of trying to abandon the original arguments I put forth in my article.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

« You have chosen to slam the Gospel of Matthew because I cited Jesus from Matthew 19:4-6 … »
.

I did not decide to “slam” the Gospel of Matthew, OzSpen. When anybody cites an author as an authority on a topic under discussion, I usually try to find out who that author is and what his qualifications are.

I had no preconceived ideas about the author of the Gospel of Matthew. I had no idea who he was, though, naturally, I had heard of the “Gospel of Matthew” since my childhood.

But, as I no longer take such things for granted, I did what I usually do in such cases. I did some research on “Matthew” before according credence to what he claims to be a verbatim quote of Jesus :

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
.

Naturally, I was surprised to discover that nobody knows for sure who the Matthew of the bible was. That nowhere does he claim to have been an eyewitness to the events that he describes. And that the gospel attributed to him seems to have been composed around the year 85 A.D., i.e., more than half a century after the death of Jesus.

Those are the facts as I understand them, OzSpen. They obviously do not plead in favour of the credibility of the author. Simply evoking them here can hardly be construed as “choosing to slam the Gospel of Matthew” or “denigrating” it.

On the contrary, failing to mention them or pretending they do not exist, could be considered dishonest. They should, at least, be evoked and discussed openly and frankly.

Do you not agree ?

.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You also wrote :

« Your ramblings about Matthew have nothing to do with the subject about which I wrote, so your comment is a Red Herring Fallacy of erroneous reasoning … This means that by denigrating the Gospel of Matthew (which was not the topic of my article), you attempted to redirect our discussion to what you wanted to discuss. Yours was a deliberate diversion from my topic, with your intention of trying to abandon the original arguments I put forth in my article »
.

I trust that my previous post allays the fears you expressed that I sought to “denigrate” the Gospel of Matthew in an earlier post.

Allow me now to assure you that the only reason I made no comment on the rest of your article was that I see it simply as a narrative relating the confrontation of different beliefs : those of Margaret Court, Peter FitzSimons (speaking on behalf of Tennis Australia), and yourself.

As I already indicated on another thread here on OLO, I respect the sincerity of personal belief, whatever the domain, and whoever may express it – however incredible or ridiculous it may appear to me.

I have nothing to add to that – apart, perhaps, from observing (for the umpteenth time) that what you refer to on this occasion as your “original arguments” (and, on other occasions, as “facts” or “evidence”) are simply quotes from the bible – in other words, your personal “beliefs”.

But don’t worry, OzSpen, I think I’m beginning to understand you now and I accept you as you are – just as I accept Runner as he is.

There’s something reassuring about being predictable.

.

Banjo P,

<<I was surprised to discover that nobody knows for sure who the Matthew of the bible was. That nowhere does he claim to have been an eyewitness to the events that he describes. And that the gospel attributed to him seems to have been composed around the year 85 A.D., i.e., more than half a century after the death of Jesus.>>

'Nobody knows for sure' is your statement and not based on the scholarship on my shelves. All 4 gospels are anonymous. None begins with words such as, 'Matthew, the apostle, to the Jewish Christians of Palestine'. Mark 3:16-19 lists Jesus' disciples, one of whom was Matthew who would have been an eyewitness to what Jesus said and did. Did the Apostle Matthew write the Gospel?

Your research leaves a lot to be desired. We discover from the writings of the early church fathers, Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, John Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine that Matthew wrote the Gospel. Irenaeus (ca. 130-202) wrote: 'Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church' (Against Heresies, Bk 3, ch 1.1), http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

Who was Irenaeus? 'As a child he heard and saw Polycarp, the last known living connection with the Apostles, in Smyrna, before that aged Christian was martyred in 155' (Encyclopaedia Britannica), http://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Irenaeus.

I suggest you need to come up to speed with your knowledge of the Bible and church history.

Banjo P,

<<I have nothing to add to that – apart, perhaps, from observing (for the umpteenth time) that what you refer to on this occasion as your “original arguments” (and, on other occasions, as “facts” or “evidence”) are simply quotes from the bible – in other words, your personal “beliefs”.>>

I would have accepted that view when I first became a Christian in the early 1960s. Now that is not my approach to the Bible and its evidence - not 'evidence'. The Bible of both Old Testament and New Testament has been shown over and over to consist of reliable, trustworthy documents, investigated by archaeologists, ancient historians and other researchers.

Regarding Jesus, see, ‘Jesus of Nazareth: How Historians Can Know Him And Why It Matters’ Craig L. Blomberg, pg7, (This essay is Copyright © 2008 by Christ on Campus Initiative). Accessed via http://legacy.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/cci/jesus_of_nazareth_how_historians_can_know_him_and_why_it_matters

Sir William Ramsay, who initially approached the Book of Acts with disbelief, eventually changed his mind. He stated: 'I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts] ... but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth' (Sir William Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen 1982:8). Ramsay was an archaeologist and former biblical sceptic. See: http://forthright.net/2017/12/05/sir-william-ramsay-and-luke-the-historian/

I've searched archaeology and history relating to Scripture and found them to be trustworthy, beyond reasonable doubt. When I go to these credible documents I find the facts and evidence for creation, world-wide flood of Noah's day, God's dealing with Israel, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and how Christians should live,(New Testament letters).

In John's Gospel, we have Jesus' appeal to all of us: 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life' (John 3:16).

It is on that factual foundation that I base my faith.

Banjo P,

I've now discovered the link I gave you to Craig Blomberg's article gives an error message, ‘Jesus of Nazareth: How Historians Can Know Him And Why It Matters’ Craig L. Blomberg, pg7, (This essay is Copyright © 2008 by Christ on Campus Initiative). Accessed via http://legacy.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/cci/jesus_of_nazareth_how_historians_can_know_him_and_why_it_matters.

Here is a link that should work: http://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/jesus-of-nazareth-how-historians-can-know-him-and-why-it-matters-by-craig-blomberg/

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

Yes, I understand that the tradition that the Greek text of “Matthew” was translated from a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original, goes back to the early second century bishop of Hierapolis, Papias, as quoted by Eusibius (Hist. eccl. 3.39.16) and that the usual translation of the Greek text is the following :

« Matthew compiled the sayings in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated them as well as he could »

I understand that Papias’ statement was taken by Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius to mean that “Matthew” composed his gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic. But that, unfortunately, Papias’ statement involves more problems than it resolves. What were the logia (“sayings”) – words of Jesus, quotes, or the whole narrative ? Why does Papias say “Hebrew” when it appears certain that Jesus spoke Aramaic ? Were there multiple translations of the Semitic “Matthew” ? Did Papias have any special reasons for making “Matthew’s” gospel prior to and independent of Mark’s gospel ?

Every important element in Papias’ statement is ambiguous, leaving open the possibility of variant translations.

It appears that there is no firm evidence in the Greek text that it was translated from a Semitic original. At any rate, the canonical text of “Matthew” is and always has been the Greek version. It seems reasonable to presume that the gospel was composed in Greek.

We should also not lose sight of the fact that Papias’ five books on the “Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord”, written in Greek and dating from about 95–120, were lost. Only a few brief excerpts were reproduced in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons (c.180) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c.320).

These two religious figures (both bishops), Irenaeus and Eusebius, can hardly be considered neutral in their judgment of what Jesus is reported by Papias to have said, verbatim, well over a century earlier.

Naturally, OzSpen, you are free to believe what you will, but, in my humble opinion, matters are not quite as clear-cut as some would have you believe.

More like blind faith if you want my honest opinion.

.

Banjo P,

<<It appears that there is no firm evidence in the Greek text that it was translated from a Semitic original. At any rate, the canonical text of “Matthew” is and always has been the Greek version. It seems reasonable to presume that the gospel was composed in Greek.>>

New Testament researcher, Michael D. Marlowe, disagrees with your conclusion. See: 'The Semitic Style of the New Testament, http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html

<<More like blind faith if you want my honest opinion.>>

There you go with another Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/9/Ad-Hominem-Circumstantial

If you continue your irrational reasoning by use of fallacies, I will not respond to you again in this thread. We cannot have a logical interaction when you do this.

Banjo P,

<<I understand that Papias’ statement was taken by Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius to mean that “Matthew” composed his gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic. But that, unfortunately, Papias’ statement involves more problems than it resolves. What were the logia (“sayings”) – words of Jesus, quotes, or the whole narrative ? Why does Papias say “Hebrew” when it appears certain that Jesus spoke Aramaic ? Were there multiple translations of the Semitic “Matthew” ? Did Papias have any special reasons for making “Matthew’s” gospel prior to and independent of Mark’s gospel ?>>

You have taken this information directly from Daniel J Harrington 1991, The Gospel of Matthew. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, p. 3. By not giving him credit for what you wrote, you have plagiarised the author - stolen from his writings.

See: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=bNf13S3k2w0C&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Papias%E2%80%99+statement+involves+more+problems+than+it+resolves.+What+were+the+logia+(%E2%80%9Csayings%E2%80%9D)+%E2%80%93+words+of+Jesus,+quotes,+or+the+whole+narrative+?+Why+does+Papias+say+%E2%80%9CHebrew%E2%80%9D+when+it+appears+certain+that+Jesus+spoke+Aramaic+?+Were+there+multiple+translations+of+the+Semitic+%E2%80%9CMatthew%E2%80%9D+?+Did+Papias+have+any+special+reasons+for+making+%E2%80%9CMatthew%E2%80%99s%E2%80%9D+gospel+prior+to+and+independent+of+Mark%E2%80%99s+gospel+?&source=bl&ots=8DYx0OCZ-n&sig=ACfU3U2uaGa3Tsh84oE7xY2TzlPT7AdOwg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzyNul_5HmAhUaQH0KHSYwCSYQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Papias%E2%80%99%20statement%20involves%20more%20problems%20than%20it%20resolves.%20What%20were%20the%20logia%20(%E2%80%9Csayings%E2%80%9D)%20%E2%80%93%20words%20of%20Jesus%2C%20quotes%2C%20or%20the%20whole%20narrative%20%3F%20Why%20does%20Papias%20say%20%E2%80%9CHebrew%E2%80%9D%20when%20it%20appears%20certain%20that%20Jesus%20spoke%20Aramaic%20%3F%20Were%20there%20multiple%20translations%20of%20the%20Semitic%20%E2%80%9CMatthew%E2%80%9D%20%3F%20Did%20Papias%20have%20any%20special%20reasons%20for%20making%20%E2%80%9CMatthew%E2%80%99s%E2%80%9D%20gospel%20prior%20to%20and%20independent%20of%20Mark%E2%80%99s%20gospel%20%3F&f=false

Sadly, I couldn't find a shorter link to this quote without using Google Books online, hence the very long URL.

Why oh why must you become this dishonest person, providing no source for your quote, making it look like your research, when they were the words and questions of Daniel J Harrington SJ?

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

« New Testament researcher, Michael D. Marlowe, disagrees with your conclusion. See: 'The Semitic Style of the New Testament »
.

As I said earlier, nothing is clear-cut about “Matthew”. I see that even Marlowe cites passages in the other two synoptic gospels that he considers to be Greek translations of original Semitic texts compared to the purely Greek expressions of “Matthew”.

Marlowe makes no bones about his personal religious convictions :

« Concerning the Bible, I believe that it is the inerrant, living and powerful word of God … I have given much of my time and energy to … helping others to believe it … Theologically I am conservative and Reformed. I consider the Westminster Confession of Faith to be an accurate summary of Biblical theology »

That statement does not augur well in my view. It's not exactly a sign of impartiality or independence of mind aimed at objectivity.
.

« <<More like blind faith if you want my honest opinion >>

There you go with another Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy »

I don’t recall having made any previous “ad hominem” remarks, OzSpen, but please accept my sincere apologies if I did. It’s totally out of character so far as I am concerned.

Also, perhaps I should add that I do not see “blind faith” as a pejorative expression. I see it as something common, not just to all human beings, but to all living creatures. Life would be impossible without it. Not everything we think and do is the result of a conscious, rational decision. Much is unconscious and instinctive. Only some of what we think and do is the result of a conscious, rational decision.

As religion is part of our cultural inheritance, it is usually adopted unconsciously. For much of mankind, religious belief takes the form of blind faith. But that does not mean it is irrational. Though the rationale is usually inheritance, it could also be of a psychological or existential nature. Historically, it was often imposed as a result of conquest.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

You then wrote :

« You have taken this information directly from Daniel J Harrington … »
.

That’s correct, OzSpen. I’m sure you will recall that I clearly indicated at the beginning of this discussion that though I had heard of “Matthew” ever since my childhood, I had no idea who he was nor what his qualifications were and that I had decided to do some research on him and his gospel.

My subsequent posts were the result of that research. They were based on several sources, the principal of which was Daniel J. Harrington.

I understand your surprise and indignation that I had not referenced the various sources and apologise for that.

I nevertheless confirm that it was, indeed, my personal research which led me to Daniel J. Harrington, among several others.

I do, normally, reference my sources but, as it seemed obvious to me that I was not claiming authorship of anything I discovered (given my opening remarks), I preferred to use my 350-word posting limit for more important matters. I considered that my source details were always available to you and anybody else who may have been interested. That did not seem to mr to be a problem. Obviously, I was wrong.

Allow me to add, OzSpen, that whatever future discussions we may have, I consider that it is important that they be conducted in a spirit of mutual confidence. I do not seek to cheat on you or anybody else, nor do I seek to “steal” anything from you or anybody else.

It so happens that if I have one single regret in life it is that I have never had an original thought. On the few rare occasions that I thought I had finally thought of something that nobody else had ever thought before me, I discovered each time, to my great regret, that I was wrong.

I get the feeling that whatever I think, say, do or write, I am always plagiarising someone. Don’t you ever get that feeling ?

.

Banjo P,

While you said your post would be "continued", in the first part you said not a word about your engaging in plagiarism of the writings of Daniel J Harrington, of which I accused you.

Plagiarism is 'the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own' (Lexico.com/Oxford Dictionary 2019. s.v. plagiarism), http://www.lexico.com/en/definition/plagiarism

This dictionary gives synonyms as: copying, infringement of copyright, piracy, theft, stealing, poaching, appropriation.

In citing Harrington, word-for-word without giving him credit, you have stolen his material to make it look like your own research. It's time for you to own up to your theft.

.

Yes, I answered that in the second part, above, OzSpen. You must have missed it.

Sorry about that. I was a bit long in replying. I’m afraid I got tied up with something else between the first and second parts.

Have a nice day.

.

Banjo P,

<<I nevertheless confirm that it was, indeed, my personal research which led me to Daniel J. Harrington, among several others.>>

You made an exact quote from Daniel J Harrington's commentary from the Book of Matthew. When you did this, you mentioned not a word about its coming from Harrington. It read as though it was your material.

Thus, you stole Harrington's material.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

All I can do is assure you once again that it was never my intention to steal anything from anybody nor to lead you or anybody else into thinking that I had suddenly become an expert on “Matthew” and his gospel after having clearly indicated that I knew nothing about either of them.

I see that Daniel J. Harrington, (July 19, 1940 – February 7, 2014), was Professor of New Testament and Chair of the Biblical Studies Department at Boston College School of Theology and Ministry (formerly Weston Jesuit School of Theology) and considered an authority in his domain.

There is no way I could ever pretend having his knowledge, expertise or qualifications. I am totally illiterate in Hebrew, Aramaic (the language of Jesus) and Greek and ignore just about everything of the historical contexts of both “Matthew” and his gospel.

It was only after spending several hours on the internet that I managed to gather some information and confront different expert opinions in order to form my own.

If you re-read my post carefully, you will see that I wrote (Friday, 29 November 2019 10:58:24 PM) :

« I understand that the tradition that the Greek text of “Matthew” was translated from a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original, goes back to the early second century … »

« I understand that Papias’ statement was taken by Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius to mean that … »

I was not affirmative about anything, nor was I pretending to be an expert. I simply (and faithfully) related what I had read and considered to be of interest. I even took the precaution of indicating that it was “my understanding” of what I had read, which left the door open to the possibility of other interpretations as well as different points of view to that which I presented.

I repeat that I understand your surprise and indignation at my not having referenced the various sources (as I usually do) and, once again, apologise for that.

.

Banjo P,

In your research of the Gospel of Matthew you've given a very lop-sided theologically liberal view. Any researcher of ancient literature (and in many other fields) must deal with the positives and negatives of that position. You haven't.

It's too bad you didn't read R C H Lenski's, The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel, where he gives a very different understanding to the one you presented.

Take a read of Lenski under his headings:

+ The earliest use of Matthew;

+ John and Matthew;

+ The hypothesis of an original Hebrew Matthew;

+ The hypothesis of a Hebrew Matthew breaks down;

+ Is the Greek Matthew a translation?

+ The old tradition;

+ The date of Matthew.

You'll find Lenski's careful research on this topic at pp 7-20:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=nQ9rJ9bc83kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=R+C+H+Lenski+The+Interpretation+of+St.+Matthew%27s+Gospel&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo7c7E-ZfmAhVk63MBHbXiB7wQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=R%20C%20H%20Lenski%20The%20Interpretation%20of%20St.%20Matthew's%20Gospel&f=false

.

Thanks, OzSpen. I’m afraid I’ve got no time now, but I’ll try to look into Lenski’s “The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel” tomorrow and get back to you just as soon as I can.

However, I note that Google books indicates : “pages 3 to 17 are not shown in this review".

I also note that Lenski (September 14, 1864 – August 14, 1936), was an Evangelical Lutheran.

I’ll see if the missing pages are available elsewhere.

.

Banjo P,

<<I also note that Lenski (September 14, 1864 – August 14, 1936), was an Evangelical Lutheran.>>

When will you quit using logical fallacies? Here you have resorted to the use of a Genetic Fallacy, which is 'basing the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises', http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/99/Genetic-Fallacy

The author of this comprehensive list of fallacies stated that 'if I make an argument defending anything Catholic [he was raised a Catholic], the argument should be evaluated on the argument itself, not on the history of the one making the argument or how I came to hold the claims as true or false'.

By your one statement you seem to have found Lenski's research suspect because he is 'an Evangelical Lutheran'. You have perpetrated erroneous reasoning.

<<However, I note that Google books indicates : “pages 3 to 17 are not shown in this review".>>

That is strange as they are all there with the browser I use, Firefox. It takes you directly to all of the pages I mentioned. Pages 3-17 are included.

I will not pursue this topic any further as we are not dealing with the content of my article - FitzSimons' fake news and deconstruction of what Margaret Court stated.

Margaret Court is not homophobic. She has stated she loves homosexuals (not sexually) and has them in her church, but she upholds the biblical requirement of heterosexual marriage, promoted by the Mosaic Law and Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 19:4-6, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A4-6&version=NIVUK

God commands all of us, especially his people, like Margaret Court and me, to 'not tell lies about others' (Matthew 19:18), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A18&version=ERV.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

When I opened it this time only “pages 3 to 4” were unavailable. I read pages 7 to 20 as you indicated.

Harrington and Lenski are basically in agreement on the analysis though Lenski evokes the possibility that “Matthew” may have written all or part of his gospel in Hebrew 20 years (or more) earlier than the year 85 A.D, the date favoured by Harrington for the Greek version. Lenski notes that the original Hebrew version, if there was one, was lost and it is unknown who translated it into Greek – so well that it does not appear to be a translation at all.

Another difference is that Lenski makes no mention of the disparity between Jesus’ speaking Aramaic (not Hebrew) and Papias indicating that Matthew compiled the logia in Hebrew, adding : “each person translates these Hebrew logia as best he could”, and “Matthew” presenting Jesus words as verbatim quotations.

However, Lenski later does admit (page 16) :

« But all these are original Aramaic terms, used as such in the discourses of Jesus … »

Despite this and a few other minor differences the two authors are largely in agreement. Both agree, as Lenski writes (page 14) :
« The various hypotheses melt under the flame of undeniable facts. Matthew himself wrote the gospel, and he wrote it as we have it now, in Greek »

Both authors narratives concord up to page 19 of Lenski. Then, suddenly, Lenski writes :

« Matthew’s theme is Jesus Christ … This theme Matthew carries through with a mass of detail. All his material is historical, including the discourses, for they were actually uttered. In fact the greater part of Matthew consists of discourses … ».

That declaration comes out of the blue. And as Lenski makes no attempt to justify it, one can only presume he is unable to.

By the way, OzSpen, citing the credentials of Lenski and Harrington is not a “Genetic Fallacy”. Credentials are simply facts. It's the illogical conclusions that may be drawn from them that qualify as “genetic fallacies”.

.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

« Margaret Court … upholds the biblical requirement of heterosexual marriage, promoted by the Mosaic Law and Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 19:4-6 :

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A4-6&version=NIVUK »
.

The link you indicated opens as follows :

[ Matthew 19:4-6 New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

4 ‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,”[a] 5 and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ ]

The text does not mention homosexual marriage – neither positively nor negatively – nor is there anything anywhere else in the New Testament about it. It is silent on the question. It probably never occurred to anybody, at the time, that there is no objective reason why perfectly respectable homosexual couples should not enjoy the same social status as heterosexual couples.

One does not necessarily preclude the other. They could (as they now do) co-exist.

Also, “Matthew” would have us believe that he is quoting Jesus verbatim though he was writing (in Greek) more than half a century after the death of Jesus (who spoke in Aramaic) and even though he never heard, personally, what Jesus said – if, indeed, Jesus did say what he is quoted as having said.

Nowhere in his gospel does “Matthew” claim to have been personal witness to any of the events or “sayings” that he relates in his gospel. Nor does he ever cite his sources.

For somebody like you, OzSpen, who (quite rightly) place such great importance on authors citing their sources, it is surprising – to say the least – that you accept “Matthew’s” narrative without question.

Let’s face it, OzSpen, the fact of the matter is that nobody knows – nor will we ever know – what Jesus thought (thinks?) about homosexual marriage.

It’s anybody’s guess.

.