Saw I finally saw the Passion of the Christ

[Ben Kenobi]

but I don't see anywhere in Mathew.. nor have I heard of anything else, that would place the two as the same Mathew

I would assume that there were many Mathew's at that time...

I think the association of Mathew the author, and Mathew the disciple came at a later date.. when people looked at the names and saw them being the same...

Matthew came from a Jewish background and how he writes is consistant with what we know of the disciple. Again, tradition attributes the gospel to Matthew, the disciple, and unless we have evidence to the contrary, then we ought to accept the authorship. After all, we have no competing theories.

This is one of the reasons why the protestants are rather lost, since they don't think much of the Fathers of the Church, who wrote and dealt with all these issues more than a thousand years ago. Given that they all accept Matthew's authorship, it is hard for me to contest.

[Ben Kenobi]

they use the exact same language at times

which if you and I saw or heard something, there would be no chance that we would be word for word at times...

There are only so many eyewitnesses. If you both talk to the same witness, one would expect the source to repeat the earlier event in the same way. You can find this in plenty of historical sources, in that people who follow the same source will have this common thread throughout their account. The fact that there are differences between the sources, and consistant differences, leads me to believe that they wrote them separately.

[Jon Miller]

there is nothing to suggest it was Mathew the apostle

including early tradition

it just starts being attributed to him at one point

and so, unless the people who started attributing it to him had some source we dont' know of, it was just a guess based upon the similiarity of the name

I actually do not think it was the Apostle (based in part on Mathew, Mark, and Lukes common source)

and yes, I do not have the view of tradition you do

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


There are only so many eyewitnesses. If you both talk to the same witness, one would expect the source to repeat the earlier event in the same way. You can find this in plenty of historical sources, in that people who follow the same source will have this common thread throughout their account. The fact that there are differences between the sources, and consistant differences, leads me to believe that they wrote them separately.

no

if you and I eyewitness the same thing

we would not use the same words to describe it

and that is just two of us

not you, I, and another guy

that is just fact

if you read Mathew, Mark, and Luke

and pay attention to language

it seems pretty obvious that they share a common source..

yes, there are differences

I don't claim that they only used the common source, but there definitely is at least one souce in common

like if you are writing a paper, they all quoted from one older paper, but then had other sources that were different from eachother

there is also thought to be a selection of Christs quotes that are in common...

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

and yes, I do not have the view of tradition you do

It's really the best way to discuss.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=969

Gets into this discussion, including the references of the church fathers ascribing authorship to Matthew.

"Added to this explicit testimony are the quotations of Matthew’s Gospel in the early patristic writers. It is quoted as early as 110 CE (by Ignatius), with a steady stream of patristic citations afterward. In fact, Matthew’s Gospel was quoted (and copied) far more often than either Mark or Luke. From earliest times, then, it was treated as canonical and authoritative on the life of Jesus Christ, regardless of authorship."

That they would cite the Gospel and refer to it as Matthew's Gospel is very strong evidence.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't claim that they only used the common source, but there definitely is at least one souce in common

like if you are writing a paper, they all quoted from one older paper, but then had other sources that were different from eachother

Yeah, that seems reasonable to me, and that's all I was trying to say. If they say the same thing, it makes sense that they are working from the same source.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And neither do we have the actual words of Julius Caesar, rather do we have the accounts of his words.

Um, WTF?

[DeathByTheSword]

Perhaps the reason the ancients rejected this gospel is for the reasons that you cite here, because of it's untrustworthiness

if the oldest texts are untrustworthy why would the newer texts based apon those text or word-mouth be any more trustworthy

about the greek latin frase...as far as i understood it was written in a greek that was different from homers greek and different from modern greek thus creating to translation problem i was talking about...that was what i ment actually but i was late for a meeting

Yes, but with respect to history, unless one has contradictory evidence, one must accept the account as true. In the case of the Gospels, it is good to ask the question of the motivations and when and where the text was written, in order to glean more insight into why they wrote what they did, and not other things. It cannot cast doubts on the authenticity of the document, unless one finds information that does not corroborate with the source at hand.

but there is contradiction...if you look at the different gospels during different time periods...the oldest versions did not talk about most of the wonders that happened around jesus...at first he was not seen as the son of god and the inmaculent reception was brought by because mark stated that jesus was born out of wedlock at afterwards that was changed because of the problems the RC church (or its predessors) had with sexuality...

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex
I pointed out the intolerance of religious groups by drawing a parallell to the release of The Last Temptation of Christ... Mainly because I don't understand what's so controversial about it...
What's your point?

To be honest, when LToC first came out (the year slips me), I bought into that bias against that movie, based on my beliefs and not on actually seeing the movie. I let others dictate to me whether the movie was a valid portrayal, rather than judging it for myself.

That was wrong.

I have yet to see that movie, but I'm certainly not going to make judgement calls on it now, based on the viewpoints of others. I will see it and then make my own judgement.

I saw the same parallel in reverse with the PoC. People accusing the movie of presenting an anti-Jewish slant, and this is important, because of the knowledge that this movie was targeted at evangelical Christians - and is a reflection of Mel's own beliefs, which are conservative in nature.

This, despite the recent comments from Mel about his views of Jews, which from what I can see, are positive. I'm do not know what he has said in the past, but I have heard what he has said now - and I will give him the benefit of the doubt. (It can be said that life is a series of changes. What I am now is different than what I was 10 years ago.)

And to be perfectly fair, I do not expect that he should have to apologize for some of the comments from his father. Both are ultimately responsible for their own actions. I do not expect my father to apologize for some of the things I have done in my life as an adult.

I saw the movie - I saw Jewish leadership of that time make a decision to bring down a man that challenged their leadership. I also saw the presentation of Jews in that movie that were positive and compassionate (Simon, as well as the grief of his disciples who were - brace yourself for this - Jews)

Say what you will about the historical accuracy of PoC. There is enough evidence to support a number of viewpoints, and the one in the movie is very plausible as the way it was - and it has it's own historical support as the way it did occur.

I see a lot of portrayals of Christian leadership in movies that can be construed as negative. Go see 'Kingdom of Heaven'... a movie that I loved because of the ideas presented despite the portrayal of corrupt and evil 'Christian' leaders.

I know that the Jewish people have a history of persecution, and much of that at the hands of so-called 'christians', and for that, I am sorry for those actions done in the name of Christ, because it is not in the message of Christianity. But Christians have had their own persecution to deal with. Today, many people equate Christianity with what is in the US (fat, lazy and in power), but there are a lot of countries around the world (and thoughout history) that routinely persecuted those who simply claim Christ as Lord. (Look at Roman/communist Russia history for a start, as well as many modern muslim countries where it is illegal to even talk about Christ...)

I'm not going to compare the level of either, as if it was some sort of warped contest, but it does show me that mankind has a tremendous capacity to hate others, and that power corrupts even the best of us all.

That is something we all could learn.

A SIDENOTE
------------------------
Many people accuse the Christian community of seeing boogeymen in everything presented in society. I do not blame people for having that viewpoint either, because we Christians often end up acting that way with some of the idiotic stuff we say and do.

We spend so much time judging others, and in fear of others, while our own house is a mess. The simple fact is that only God judges and I cannot, by force of will, change one person's heart. Only God can do that. I can tell what I feel is presented in Scripture, and its interpretation to me, but it is up to the person who is presented with the info to do with it what he will.
------------------------

[OzzyKP]

Once again, I agree with you 100% hexagonian.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword

but there is contradiction...if you look at the different gospels during different time periods...the oldest versions did not talk about most of the wonders that happened around jesus...at first he was not seen as the son of god and the inmaculent reception was brought by because mark stated that jesus was born out of wedlock at afterwards that was changed because of the problems the RC church (or its predessors) had with sexuality...

you don't know what you are talking about

JM

[Jon Miller]

the oldest versions are like what we have now...

so do mention miracles, and Jesus being the son of God

it is what some speculate as older versions.. that they speculate don't mention...

but there is no proof of that

Jon Miller

[DeathByTheSword]

you dont know what you are talking if you blindy say to have earthly prove that the versions that are in the bible are the correct versions. is say earthly prove because the only way that the bible as we know it is correct is to say you believe in them because of religous reasons/spiritual reasons...

there are so many scriptures that contradict what the bible is saying and just as many stories that say that what the bible is saying is utterly false.

I will not be drawn in a battle to show who has more references because i do not want to offend christians and knowing the people here i will probably lose because after awhile i just get bored with copying and pasting...if you want to believe in the bible that is fine with me...but dont come to me and say it is historial correct or say again to me that i do not no what i am talking about i have 16 years of strict catholic upbring in my body and i did not turn out to be the biggest athiest in the world because i do not know what i am talking about or i think 'god' failed me. (i use god between ' to point out that i do not believe there is one. ) besides that i have seen in with my own eyes the pain people went thru because of RC church and christianity in general so stop trying to lecture me and see that although the bible has a historial background it is in NO WAY a CORRECT historial book....

[DeathByTheSword]

DAMN IT NOW YOU MAKE ME SOUND LIKE A FANATIC

[Pekka]

What? Berz you bastard! You haven't even SEEN THE MOVIE? End of discussion .

Well, I still say it's stupid to cry about violence if you knowingly go to see a movie about a period of 12 hours that is.. well.. violence. I think it's obvious enough. TO debate if it even then was too violent would be matter of taste and opinion, no facts. Of course everyone can have an opinion.

And so that our catholics on this board won't get their panties on a twist, I was only rambling and scrambling and upsetting people with it, because well.. it was there and I took it. So sue me . Except paiktis, don't sue me for this, at least not in Italy please.

I still think the movie was good. I think violence can be used, even excessive violence, if there's a good reason for it and I think there was a good reason for it in this case. Just like sex in movies, if there's a GOOD reason for it, then sure.