- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/1/24 at 3:33 pm to kciDAtaE
Posted on 4/1/24 at 3:56 pm to RoyalAir
quote:
But Matthew's gospel is very "dry" in its account, in comparison to the other three. When an event happens in multiple Gospels, Matthew's is written like an unbiased, succinct observer. I can honestly see how/why you would protray him as being autistic.
The Apostle Matthew is not the author of the Gospel of Matthew.
Posted on 4/1/24 at 4:02 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
The Apostle Matthew is not the author of the Gospel of Matthew.
Like the William Shakespeare theories, I am not sure I buy that...
This post was edited on 4/1/24 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 4/2/24 at 4:27 am to FreddieMac
quote:
Like the William Shakespeare theories, I am not sure I buy that...
Oh geez.
Posted on 4/2/24 at 8:26 am to Antonio Moss
quote:What makes you think that?
The Apostle Matthew is not the author of the Gospel of Matthew.
Posted on 4/2/24 at 8:30 am to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
A considerable amount of scripture has changed since that time too.
This is simply false. The opposite is true, especially as compared to any other ancient documents, whether it be history, literature, or personal letters.
It’s very difficult to maintain the literal facsimile of a text as the meaning of words change, and translation from language to language become necessary.
You either sacrifice literal translation for clearer meaning, or clearer meaning for facsimile. You can’t have both. That’s why GOOD footnotes are required for study Bibles.
Posted on 4/2/24 at 10:54 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
This is simply false. The opposite is true, especially as compared to any other ancient documents, whether it be history, literature, or personal letters.
It’s very difficult to maintain the literal facsimile of a text as the meaning of words change, and translation from language to language become necessary.
You either sacrifice literal translation for clearer meaning, or clearer meaning for facsimile. You can’t have both. That’s why GOOD footnotes are required for study Bibles.
We know unequivocally that things have been removed, changed, or left out of the Bible over the last 2000 years which over that time period itself is an issue.
Posted on 4/2/24 at 1:01 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
The Apostle Matthew is not the author of the Gospel of Matthew.
What makes you think that?
A considerable amount of evidence. It’s pretty accepted by historians that it was written around 70 years after Christ’s death in Antioch.
Posted on 4/2/24 at 2:00 pm to boogiewoogie1978
quote:No books have ever been removed from the Bible. The gospels and books you speak of were never part of the Bible. Leaving out Books that could not be verified is the opposite of an issue. It points to the fact that they didn't just put anything in there.
We know unequivocally that things have been removed, changed, or left out of the Bible over the last 2000 years which over that time period itself is an issue.
Posted on 4/2/24 at 2:16 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
No books have ever been removed from the Bible.
It depends on what version you're talking about which is my point. History has been manipulated over thousands of years.
This post was edited on 4/2/24 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 4/2/24 at 2:52 pm to boogiewoogie1978
The 73-book Christian bible has not changed
Posted on 4/2/24 at 4:19 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
No books have ever been removed from the Bible. The gospels and books you speak of were never part of the Bible. Leaving out Books that could not be verified is the opposite of an issue. It points to the fact that they didn't just put anything in there.
So is not the Bible as we know it today a combination of the Torah and the gospels chosen by the Council of Nicaea? I know there are a number of Gnostic gospels that were not included in the official bible of the catholic church, but nothing was ever taken out of the current bible.
Posted on 4/2/24 at 6:40 pm to ThunderSnow
quote:
I enjoyed it but them portraying Matthew as Rainman was a big turnoff. I dreaded every scene with him.
Same reaction. Totally unnecessary.
The Matthew tweak was just one of several "real-touches" (*eyeball roll*) that makes this series un-watchable.
Posted on 4/2/24 at 6:47 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
The 73-book Christian bible has not changed
Ever?
Jerome did zero editing?
Posted on 4/2/24 at 7:09 pm to meeple
quote:
A considerable amount has changed from scripture, some more important than others. I would warn against anyone watching this. If you must watch it, to exercise discernment.
I know I’m in the minority, but I know where I stand and why I believe it.
With ya, brutha. It may be a minority opinion but it's a righteous opinion.
If anything warrants full reverence of actual content and conversations, it is Holy Scripture.
Scripture and the life and time of Jesus Christ and His disciples are characters in a fictional play or novel to be changed and "humanized" so they become "real people like us" (they weren't).
Frankly, the Producers should air a HUGE Disclaimer before each and every show.
This post was edited on 4/2/24 at 7:10 pm
Posted on 4/2/24 at 7:23 pm to Liberator
So far it matches up with the bible, what is different? People just keep saying it's different, but how?
Posted on 4/3/24 at 12:32 am to FreddieMac
quote:I only watched a couple episodes in the first season, didn't mind it but also didn't capture my attention too much. What I saw there extrapolated a bit, to fill in some details that (to the best of my knowledge) weren't written or recorded. Some of that was simply a best-guess scenario on how something went down.
So far it matches up with the bible, what is different? People just keep saying it's different, but how?
One thing I believe gets over-criticized, is the "that's not exactly what was said" arguments. Of course that wasn't exactly what was said, every Bible is a translation. Even the oldest texts were Greek, which wasn't the language spoken.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 4:36 am to FreddieMac
quote:
So is not the Bible as we know it today a combination of the Torah and the gospels chosen by the Council of Nicaea?
No.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 6:30 am to Liberator
quote:
Scripture and the life and time of Jesus Christ and His disciples are characters in a fictional play or novel to be changed and "humanized" so they become "real people like us" (they weren't).
Ummm... the disciples weren't "real people like us"? You sure about that? They didn't have the same everyday struggles like we do? Please go on and tell us how they were different from us.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News