The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Fitz Files Fail > Comments

Fitz Files Fail : Comments

By Spencer Gear, published 25/11/2019

Dear Fitz, dishonouring a Christian woman proclaiming biblical Christianity is a disgrace.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. All
.

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”.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 5 December 2019 10:02:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

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.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 7 December 2019 2:25:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy