What Did Jesus Intend?

[Shaker]

They're both heretics.

I dare say they might say exactly the same of you ...

[ad_orientem]

I dare say they might say exactly the same of you ...

They might well, but the Holy Spirit through the life of the Church says otherwise.

[Shaker]

They might well, but the Holy Spirit through the life of the Church says otherwise.

Can we have something a bit more of a credible source please?

[ad_orientem]

Can we have something a bit more of a credible source please?

That the Church condemned both Marcion and Arius.

[Shaker]

That the Church condemned both Marcion and Arius.

Evidently you didn't understand the question ...

[ad_orientem]

Evidently you didn't understand the question ...

Oh I did. You just don't like the answer.

[Shaker]

Oh I did. You just don't like the answer.

Since I asked for a credible source, you didn't give one.

[Spud]

Perhaps you should say authors. What proof do you have that one person wrote this or that it came from one person's eye witness account? It is more likely, as they didn't have Word in those days, that all these accounts were collected together later well after they were made.

"In the year 38, the 12 Apostles lived as a closed corporation in Jerusalem. The Lord had entrusted their powers to them as a oneness and when Matthew took up his pen he could dare it only as its secretary.

... Matthew wrote for the Twelve when they were still together."

Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy, Fruit of Lips, page 142, Appendix 7.

[ad_orientem]

Since I asked for a credible source, you didn't give one.

I would argue that it is credible. You're not the arbiter of credible.

[Shaker]

I would argue that it is credible.

You can argue it all you like - it won't make the implausible plausible, the irrational rational or the false true.

You're not the arbiter of credible.

No, testable, shareable, (sometimes) repeatable reality is - we've got a methodology for sorting true claims from false or at best undemonstrable ones there. Investigable sources are. And so forth. Not bald assertion, not age or numbers or any other of the fallacies you keep wheeling out.

[Hope]

"In the year 38, the 12 Apostles lived as a closed corporation in Jerusalem. The Lord had entrusted their powers to them as a oneness and when Matthew took up his pen he could dare it only as its secretary.

... Matthew wrote for the Twelve when they were still together."

Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy, Fruit of Lips, page 142, Appendix 7.

The problem with this suggestion is that Matthew's Gospel is generally regarded as having been written in the last couple of decades of the first century; not only had Judas Iscariot left the group 50 or more years earlier, many of the apostles were, themselves, no longer alive.

The only way that what Eugene suggests could be true would be if the original author of Matthew's Gospel was the compiler of the oft-referred to 'missing document' that Mark and Luke are possibly based on and the final material that we know was pulled together into a more coherent record by some later disciple.

[Spud]

Hi Hope,
The Twelve he refers to do not include Judas Iscariot but Matthias. What he says in between the two parts of his appendix 7 that I have quoted is interesting. I may post it up.

[jeremyp]

Except if you believe in prophesy, which is why you can't separate study of the scriptures from the faith, for the unbeliever will always conclude what you have just concluded.

I do apologise. I've mixed up two passages. The one used to date John's gospel is this

[the parents of the recently healed blind man] answered, ‘We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but we do not know how it is that now he sees, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.’ His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.

This is not a prophecy but a straight forward narrative of the events following Jesus restoring the sight of a blind man.

[jeremyp]

Hi Hope,
The Twelve he refers to do not include Judas Iscariot but Matthias. What he says in between the two parts of his appendix 7 that I have quoted is interesting. I may post it up.

What was his source? Or did he make all that up.

The Gospel of Matthew we have was very unlikely to have been written by the Apostle Matthew. For one thing, the person who wrote Matthew copied most of Mark. One would expect an eye witness to write his own narrative.

[ad_orientem]

St. Matthew didn't copy St. Mark for St. Matthew's was written first.

[Jack Knave]

There are literary and linguistic ways of seeing whether a document has been written by one or more authors.  As far as I'm aware, there is no scholarly suggestion that the book was written by more than one author.

Then that may mean that it is a copy of various fragments done by other people, hence the way it doesn't hang together.

[Rhiannon]

St. Matthew didn't copy St. Mark for St. Matthew's was written first.

It wasn't though, was it, ad-o. Stop lying to yourself.

[ad_orientem]

It wasn't though, was it, ad-o. Stop lying to yourself.

Says who? The conjectures of modern scholars (most of whom are unbelievers or as good as)? Forgive me for not taking them seriously.

[Spud]

The Gospel of Matthew we have was very unlikely to have been written by the Apostle Matthew. For one thing, the person who wrote Matthew copied most of Mark. One would expect an eye witness to write his own narrative.

The only thing we know he copied, by his own admission quoting from it, is what we now call the Old Testament, eg. Isaiah 7:14. The most likely explanation for this is that he had nothing else.

[Jack Knave]

"In the year 38, the 12 Apostles lived as a closed corporation in Jerusalem. The Lord had entrusted their powers to them as a oneness and when Matthew took up his pen he could dare it only as its secretary.

... Matthew wrote for the Twelve when they were still together."

Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy, Fruit of Lips, page 142, Appendix 7.

And how do you know that to be a fact from personal experience? Because unless you saw this to be true from a first-hand perspective you have no way of knowing this.

[Spud]

What was his source? Or did he make all that up.

I will quote him in full:

"In the year 38, the 12 Apostles lived as a closed corporation in Jerusalem. The Lord had entrusted their powers to them as a oneness and when Matthew took up his pen he could dare it only as its secretary.

Contemporary criticism arises from the hell of individualism since the Enlightenment. It sees the particular Evangelists as will-o-the-wisps messing around in a swamp. Oh, each of them spoke in all the Apostles' names, most of all, naturally, the two later ones, Matthias and Paul. Of the substitue Apostle, Matthias, there is a precious piece of evidence. Clement of Alexandria reports in Stromata VII, 13: 'The Apostle Matthias (Acts 1:15-26) said always: if the neighbor of an elect man sin, the elect man has sinned. For had he conducted himself as the Word prescribes, his neighbor would have been filled with such reverence for the life he led as not to sin.'

This citation is precious, because here the oneness of the Apostles is apparent. No John writes here of the Logos, no Luke of the Servants of the Word [Luke 1:2]. No, the later one appeals to the Word, to the Logos and out of his sentence arises the unified speech of all the Apostles and the Evangelists. The alleged 'late Johannine element is also familiar to the Evangelist.

They are all of one mind. The genealogy in Matthew is as little 'Matthean' as the prologue to John's gospel is 'Johannine.' For they believed one and all to be righteous and sinners together and only together to become worthy of the healing power of the spirit.  However, we will thereby arrive at a reasonable dating of the Gospels. There are no tricks of hind-prophesying, there are no falsifications of purpose. They accuse far more the authors or guarantors of the weaknesses whose victims they were. And they go back one and all to the intimacy of the Apostles. Matthew wrote for the Twelve when they were still together."

E R-H, Fruit of Lips, page 142, Appendix 7.

[Jack Knave]

I do apologise. I've mixed up two passages. The one used to date John's gospel is this

This is not a prophecy but a straight forward narrative of the events following Jesus restoring the sight of a blind man.

How and why does it do that, date John?

[ad_orientem]

I do apologise. I've mixed up two passages. The one used to date John's gospel is this

This is not a prophecy but a straight forward narrative of the events following Jesus restoring the sight of a blind man.

Eh? I don't get it. I must be dumb or something because there's no way I can see how anyone can use that to date the said gospel. Clutching at straws, I reckon.

[jeremyp]

St. Matthew didn't copy St. Mark for St. Matthew's was written first.

Wrong.

[jeremyp]

Says who?

Says everybody except a few sad people who can't accept reality.

The conjectures of modern scholars (most of whom are unbelievers or as good as)? Forgive me for not taking them seriously.

Forgive me for not taking you seriously on this subject.