spin

This tangent is based on a misconception. No-one is claiming not to have presuppositions. It is the nature of human existence. The claim is that rather than try to deal with your presuppositions, you as a christian structure your understanding through the presuppositions, making it impossible for you to deal with anything regarding those presuppositions.

We have the possibility to talk -- you can understand much of what I have to say --, but we have to do away with the barriers to topics. If I can try to do that, why can't you?

Over 90% of Mark is in Matthew. Matthew is a bigger text so material also came from other sources, such as one shared with Luke. If you find that a willful presupposition, I think it is willful to ignore these facts.

You are using an untested tradition which contraverts the facts we have. Matthew has almost all of the same stories as Mark, but the language has been improved, certain systemic changes have been made (eg changing "kingdom of god" to "kingdom of heaven" contra Luke) and certain details (found in Luke) have been omitted, apparently to simplify the stories. This shows that the Greek Mark was the major source. Then one looks at the shared material with Luke and there leaves nothing coherent as a source for the claim of a sayings source in Aramaic.

??

That doesn't make Matthew Jewish, but explains why Gentiles didn't see him.

As I said, over 90% of Mark is in Matthew. Deal with it.

This misrepresents reality. Because Matthew gets a few "prophecies" closer to the original language doesn't imply that the writer involved was Jewish.

Please elucidate all these dripped presuppositions.

Do I disagree with that?

Do I disagree with that?

I would suggest that you are talking as if you haven't read the texts. You haven't got your hands dirty looking at the actual words and that you are simply repeating unsupported claptrap. Why don't you put aside your presuppositions long enough to go and buy a scholarly commentary on Matthew -- not a devotional commentary, but one written by people who will look at the linguistics of the gospel closely -- and see what it has to say on the issue? I know what you will find and the sheer weight of the evidence would take far too long to go into here. But if you like...

The logic of last sentence isn't clear to me.


spin

sschlichter

As to presuppositions. I am glad you agree. it is impossible to remove yourself from what you beleive and it effects how you and I look at evidence. You condemned me for using a personal pronoun because it exposed my presuppostion that matthew was written by an eyewitness. The condemnation is based on interpretation of evidence that is based on a disbeleif in the supernatural. That is absolutely where we will end up.

I am coming to the conclusion that those most interested in pointing out my presuppostions are likely the most blinded to their own - just a theory.

To base Matthew on Mark, it is actually more relevant how much of Matthew is from mark, not that 90% of Mark is in Matthew. 100% of the word 'the' is in Matthew but Matthew is not based on the word 'the'. It does not show that the greek Mark was the major source. It shows the possibility of Mark being a source, or the person of Mark being a source, or a different perspective, or a shared source or any combination of the above. Why are you so willing to jump on this boat? Not that I care. I have no interest in Matthew not being based on mark. I am just baffled as to when you decide to send the jury home and when you do not.

The evidence I gave is what I have that leads me to think that the author of Matthew is Jewish. Getting a few prophecies closer to the original language certainly DOES lend one to beleive he is Jewish. Of course it is not proof. A Roman can be knowledgable in Jewish language and culture. A Roman can simulate an autobiographical reference. A Roman could take pieces of Mark and make them look like they are coming from someone more comfortable with the Hebrew language. As I said, these remain possibilities.

Back to my original question, which do you think is more likely in the specific case of Matthew?

That is a typical reaction that I get on this site. If I do not see what you see then it must be because I have not looked close enough. It is strange how so many people devote themselves to studying the Bible in its original language around the world do not see what is entirely obvious to you.

Around 150 years ago it was just as obvious that John was written around the year 200.


~Steve

spin

This last claim is false. Read any modern scholarly commentary and then try to explain the issue away to your self with the comfortable lie "that is based on a disbeleif in the supernatural". And I'm serious: stop your rot and go out and read a few scholarly commentaries. You obviously can't trust me, but check out the reality at your own leisure and come back with the results... but I know you won't. It's comfortable in your sty of contentment.

And a comforting theory, isn't it?

I'm sorry, but you're waffling.

Why don't you look at the Greek sources??

We are clearly dealing with literary sources, unless you'd like to imagine that the Matthean writer had an oral source for all of Mark present and as the source spoke, the scribe fixed up the language as he recorded.

I think you need one of those scholarly commentaries.

That encourages a response, doesn't it?

Perhaps, when you've done the background work and you've compared the Greek texts at a linguistic level as to how similar the texts are on specific passages and how they vary, you might get an idea for yourself.

Given that the two major sources for the gospel are Greek sources, I can't see how a few trappings would be seen as convincing.

As I don't see how to resolve the issue, the question hasn't got much point.

When you carry the mark of the beast on your forehead, your state is clearly visible. That mark is a flashing sign saying "I don't know what I'm talking about". That is evinced by your open declaration of never having compared the texts of Matthew and Mark -- or at least selected passages -- in the original language for their linguistic relationship.

The reason I point you to scholarly commentaries on Matthew is to help you over your errors.

Another curve ball. Around 150 years ago they thought the world began in 4004 BCE.


spin

sschlichter

ok, good job. You've successfully avoided providing any information and answering any questions about the information I provide. I think that is pretty much a wrap. good talking to you about the selection of the Jews.

~Steve

spin

On the contrary I have provided information... which wasn't sufficient for you.

I guess that means you didn't like my responses.

:wave:


spin

Flux Æon

Just catching up here...but the OP is interesing in that I have an old quote, the source I don't know, "How odd of God to choose the Jews."

But to the point....God (Yahweh) did not choose the Jews...they chose him. Prior to the biblical exodus, the Hebrews were polytheistic and believed in more than one god (they weren't "Jews" yet). But at some point just before the exodus, or possibly during, they adopted Yahweh as their god because they were more afraid of him than the other gods. Afterall, Yahweh was/is the warrior god and was/is the son of El.

Originally, only those who lived in Judah were called "Jews". However, later, other Israelites from other regions "became" Jews when they began to claim to be descendants of the tribe of Judah, around the 8th to the 6th century.

Toto

Strange origin of "how odd of God/To choose the Jews"

Iskander

Does the Bible say why God chose Jews to be his chosen people?

Truth is in the eye of the beholder


Shemot - Chapter 19

6. you] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."


The Torah presents Israel’s relationship with G-d as
based upon a covenant between them. This
is the essential factor that defines the identity of the
nation as well as that of each individual Israelite. The
key features of this relationship include the concept of
His election of Israel for its role and responsibilities in
the world, namely, that it is to be “a kingdom of
priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:6) that is to bring
blessing to the nations of the world through
fulfillment of His covenant stipulations; His granting
it the Land of Canaan as the arena in which the nation
would fulfill its destiny; His providential care and
concern for the nation; His pledge to judge it by the
degree of compliance or non-compliance of His
stipulations and His guarantee of the possibility of
repentance and restoration after backsliding and
attendant retribution, even exile.

G-d’s covenantal relationship with Israel began on a
personal level with Abraham

doubt

I don't think the bible is capable of giving a coherent reason for why god chose the Jews, because it internally discusses different gods, as ohters have alluded to.

God was a voice in Abraham's head. He was a jealous god. He punished your progeny for your sins. He never promised you eternal life, just that you pay close attention to his every whim, which was all you got, since you could never actually see, hear, smell, taste, nor touch him. He would only kill the enemy's firstborn, never yours, though you better nip the tip of his spear, if you catch my drift...

Timeout! Rip that curtain! Kill my firstborn! Now, at least a few thousand witnessed, that is to say, saw, heard, smelled, and touched god, and, via the miracle of transubstantiation, billions have tasted him, too. And we are garaunteed eternal life now, whether we want it or not, after reading Dante for any length of time.

My point? God changes. Each latest incartnation of faith oddly finds itself to be the ultimate truth. God is the face of your particular religion. Your religion is the child of another, and will be the father of another.

ible

Do you have some reasons to make this statement enlightening, or are you just going to assert this?


Any one person should do what they think is the right thing to do. But that's not what I said. There is an account (whether true or not) of a fellow named Jesus, and you can talk about whether a given person emulates the sort of person that Jesus supposedly was.


I'd rather know what is moral than decide what is moral. My pride need not transcend all standards of good .

I'll note that you haven't shown me the correction I need to make regarding good/bad atheists. My statement still stands, despite your nonexistent "correction." Sounds like you wanted a good springboard to get up on your soap box. A more correct introduction then, would not have been "correction" but "consider." But when I consider the fact that I don't make morals (though I make moral decisions), it provides an obligation for me to learn morals to make good moral decisions.


What is this even supposed to mean? In your view, nobody has access to moral standards except the ones we make up. In the Christian view, you and I have direct access to the standard of morality, embodied in the life and teachings of Christ. So I'm not sure what you mean.


What sort of material do you have that Christians don't have? Let's consider the following: For actions to be truly moral requires that the action be willed for the sake of what is good, and you must will it yourself. (An action you are forced to do would be amoral.) Does your worldview include free will? Unlikely---materialism usually deprives a person of that. It appears that in their worldview, Christians (at least those who believe in some measure of free will) actually have the ability to be moral, whereas you can never hope to be moral. Unless you are thinking of some other material I'm not aware of.