re: Tom Homan: “As a Catholic, I think they need to spend time fixing the Catholic Church."

quote:

---

Ok, so the holy spirit doesn't "talk" to you like this. There is no conversation. You are talking about the way men communicate.

---

I am very well aware of the communication and moving of the Holy Spirit.

quote:

---

And I simply do not see that same understanding in Paul. Instead, I see the worship of labels/idols and things I was taught not to do.

---

But you do great harm to the body of Christ with your strange and deceitful doctrines. You cause people to doubt and deny that the comforter teaches at all.

I seriously doubt that you know the heart of God.

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

quote:

---

No. It’s the same Greek word just conjugated differently. Strong’s concordance 142. The word means to lift up, take, or carry away. In Mark it is “they should not take” and in Luke it is “ya’ll shall not take”. In Mark it is subjunctive third person while in Luke it is accusative second person plural. The plural is the you (all) or what you’d say as “y’all”. You’re making up lies is all you are doing.

---

It seems you misunderstood. I was talking about the different words used by Mark and Luke compared to Matthew.

In Matthew, the word is ktesesthe (Strongs 2932), which means possess, purchase, provide, or obtain.

In Mark and Luke, the word is a form of airo (Strongs 142), which means take up, take away, take, away with, lift up, or bear, as you stated.

You wanted me to "throw Matthew out the window", but I'm not going to do that precisely because I'm focusing on the different words used between Matthew and Mark and Luke demonstrating different nuances.

Matthew is saying not to acquire anything new. Mark is saying not to take anything (which you already have) except a staff, sandals, and one tunic. Luke says not to take anything you already have, including multiple staffs (plural). When you compare the statements, it all works out: go quickly, don't get anything for your trip that you don't already have, and what you already have on you, leave everything behind except one staff, sandals, and one tunic.

Also, Luke uses the plural form of staff, but the singular of money, bag/scrip, and bread. The other plural word is tunics, which he says not to take more than one. It makes sense that Luke is highlighting the plural form of staffs because he's focusing on more than one per person.

quote:

---

No. Seriously don’t you check before you write this kind of nonsense?

---

I actually do. I'll show you shortly.

quote:

---

“Rabdon” is used in both Mark and Luke and is an accusative feminine singular noun.

---

Mark uses rhabdon (feminine, accusative, singular) while Luke uses rhabdous (feminine, accusative, plural). The ending is what indicates the grammatical number, and the ending is different between Mark and Luke.

quote:

---

Even if the staff in Luke was plural, you would be an arse to think the way you put it in your response to me. If I tell a kid “don’t eat any snacks after you brush your teeth.” I would think they were being a little a-hole if they said “dad I only ate one snack, you said I couldn’t have any snacks-plural.”

“Take nothing for the journey, no staffs…”
Would indicate to any rational sane person (not you) that such a command means don’t take one staff, two staffs, or any amount of staffs. But it’s irrelevant because because the noun in Luke is a singular noun and you are full of shite.

---

You're factually wrong about the plural usage of the word in Luke. I could dismiss you completely from that alone, but I won't, because it's easy to make mistakes working with a different language. I do it all the time.

If Jesus actually said "don't bring more than one staff", then you could relay that same fact in multiple ways:

-You may bring a staff
-You may only bring one staff
-You may only bring a staff that you already have on you
-You may not go and acquire a staff that you do not already have on you
-You may not bring more than one staff
-You may not bring multiple staffs
-You may not bring staffs

I've already explained how Matthew is saying "you may not go and acquire a staff that you do not already have on you", while Mark is saying "you may bring one staff", and Luke is saying "you may not bring multiple staffs".

Given that this is at least possibly true from the grammar of the three accounts, you cannot say it is an irreconcilable contradiction, even if you don't think that's what the authors are actually saying. That's an interpretative disagreement, not a necessary grammatical contradiction.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Also, Luke uses the plural form of staff, but the singular of money, bag/scrip, and bread

---

False

---

True. You actually admitted it later in your post.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Mark uses rhabdon (feminine, accusative, singular) while Luke uses rhabdous (feminine, accusative, plural). The ending is what indicates the grammatical number, and the ending is different between Mark and Luke

---

False.

---

See above.

quote:

---

In Luke, Jesus says take nothing. No staff (singular). Even if it were No staffs (plural), the context right before says take nothing. That defeats your stupid asinine plural argument.

“Mom I know you told me to not play any video games, so I only played a single game all day.” I don’t think that would fly.

“Do not touch those wires, or you will be shocked”. Would the dumbass touch one single wire only because you told him not to touch wires plural? That’s not how Indo-European languages work.

---

Again, you are falling down on analyzing even a singular verse. Here's why:

Your argument here is that "take nothing" means literally nothing, and that means not taking two or more staffs is out because they aren't supposed to take anything at all, even a singular staff. The problem, though, is that in the same verse, the disciples are also told not to take two tunics each. The obvious implication is that they can bring one tunic a piece, and that fits with the parallels. If "nothing" literally meant "nothing", it would apply to the tunics, as well, not just the extra tunic, since, as you are claiming, "nothing" really means "nothing". I suppose they were supposed to walk around naked

quote:

---

Ok let me show you your mistake
...
In fairness, from this research, I did see that the Textus Receptus does have the plural

---

Ah, OK. So it is in there and it's not a mistake. I would think that you would at least edit your initial "let me show you your mistake" before not actually showing me a mistake.

quote:

---

but that’s a medieval manuscript.

---

The TR is, but the earliest manuscripts that support that reading are not medieval.

quote:

---

The earliest manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus use the singular “rhabdon”. So obviously the doctored version is the one you’re using.

---

The earliest versions are about 50 years or so from the earliest usage of the plural. I think you should look up how textual criticism works before jumping too far down that hole, because so far, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. You claimed the plural originates from a "medieval manuscript"

quote:

---

Bro… just pure stupidity and ignorance.

---

No one is interested in your opinion. So far, all you've provided is your opinion, because the facts do not conclusively show what you're trying to prove, that there is an "irreconcilable contradiction".

quote:

---

You’re ignoring “take nothing”, you’re ignoring the earliest and consensus original “rhabdon” (singular), your ignoring how language works, and if he’d have wanted to say don’t take “two staffs” he would have said it just like he said “two tunics”.

---

I've answered your other sad attempts above. If "nothing" means "nothing at all", then even one tunic would not suffice.

What you continue to fail to see in this exercise, is that the point doesn't change no matter how you slice it. Jesus told the disciples to go in a hurry and take nothing more than what they need to get on the road, trusting in God's provision on their journey. All three accounts are saying the exact same thing.

quote:

---

False. “Luke” uses the one that is the original, contained within the vast majority of manuscripts, and ALL manuscripts and fragments from before the 5th century. The singular is the original. For you to go all in on a variant manuscript which scholars agree was not the original is idiotic, but that’s par for the course with you.

Tertullian.org - Cyril of Alexandria commentary on Luke

No matter how much you want rhabdon to be rhabdous, it’s still rhabdon.

---

You can argue the dating all you want. You contradicted yourself in your own post.

Whether the singular or plural form is original is debated. There are several instances where the oldest variant isn't accepted as original for the same sorts of reasons why newer variants may not be seen as original that go beyond the age.

But even if I granted that the original word for staff in Luke was singular rather than plural, it still doesn't change the overall argument being made, as I summarized previously: "Jesus told the disciples to go in a hurry and take nothing more than what they need to get on the road, trusting in God's provision on their journey."

They were to get going right away, not taking time to go buy what they were lacking or to get it from their homes or elsewhere. They were to head out and trust in the Lord to provide for what they needed on the way.

Since I'm still learning Greek, here is someone's take on the grammar that deals with it better than me.

LINK

quote:

---

Pretty sure you're missing the point in that the church holds vast amounts of wealth.

---

No. I understand that completely. Vatican City also has pretty tight immigration controls and punishes violators (including a $25K fine).

I have no problem understanding the duplicitousness of the Church.

The point is you should make that argument without resorting to made-up internet bullshite, if you want to be taken seriously.

quote:

---

No. I understand that completely. Vatican City also has pretty tight immigration controls and punishes violators (including a $25K fine).

I have no problem understanding the duplicitousness of the Church.

The point is you should make that argument without resorting to made-up internet bullshite, if you want to be taken seriously.

---

I guess, but I don't really care how much the Pope's thrown actually costs or whatever. I do care about the actual point being made.

And there is only one true teacher. It's not me, and it's not the church either.

quote:

---

researching now to convert and it is more true than any protestant church ive ever attended

---

I am a convert and I can assure you that the down votes you've received have come from one of two types of parties:

1. Lifelong Protestants who don't actually know anything about the church
2. Former "Catholics" who were poorly catechized

The one thing I will agree with those parties on is that cradle Catholics rarely understand the depth of the theology regarding their faith

quote:

---

Then why post that shite? That's how Leftists make an argument, and you're no Leftist.

---

Because a picture says 1000 words.

quote:

---

Is it really a point at this stage? Who doesn't agree that the Catholic Church sits on vast wealth (and Vatican City has stringent immigration laws) while preaching Marxist nonsense? The most fervent practicing Catholics don't disagree.

The problem isn't the wealth or Vatican City immigration laws. The problem is the Lefty leadership.

---

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

quote:

---

And Jesus did in fact tell the rich man to sell his belongings and to follow him, rather than to wait for his death and believe his death would get him into heaven.

Jesus said you had to walk a path and the church tells people they just have to worship Jesus.

---

The reason why Jesus told that man to give away his possessions is not because that would merit eternal life, but because that man's god was his wealth and possessions.

Jesus knew this, which is why when the man approached Jesus and asked what good work he must do (according to the law), Jesus started by talking about the second table of the law (man's duty to his neighbor), and then after the rich man said he's kept those perfectly from birth (he didn't, but only thought he did), Jesus brings him back to the first commandment by showing this man that his wealth was his true god.

You're right that the Scriptures teach that Christians must do good works and not just make a profession of faith, however the way the Scriptures talk about works is as the result or fruit of faith, not a basis of salvation. We are not saved by works, but by faith that is evidenced by works. The rich young man that Jesus was talking to lacked faith, and it was evidenced by his rejection of Christ.