mwc Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 I was trying to track down which church father made the decision there should be four gospels because there were four winds and four corners of the earth or some such nonsense and I ended up on my strange friend Papias for some reason (who "names" the gospel authors). The following sentence really jumped out: but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. Now does this sound like someone describing people talking in tongues and others listening to them or is it just me? Not that I'm a huge supporter of Papias, but this sounds like he is claiming that is how G.Matthew came into existence. That it's no better than other gibberish spouted by "oracles" and this could be how ALL the stories had their start. Paul, in his letters, sure is an advocate of this methodology and it is the only way he ever encountered "jesus." I realize that "oracles" could mean "sayings" but then G.Matthew should be a "sayings" gospel...which it's not (not even close). The word "interpreted" also goes well with the "tongues" idea since the "oracles" required interpretation. Paul even mandates this in his letters. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
currentchristian Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 I've heard that the Vatican is built over the last Mithric temple and site of the last official sacrifice of a bull. I saw a video (many years ago) of the last pope going to the opening of a cave under the Vatican and declaring he wouldn't enter it because it was "evil" and off limits. At the time I agreed with his decision (although I was Lutheran) but now I'd LOVE to get a shot at that tunnel. mwc Me, too. I'd also like to see what we could discover on the Temple Mount. Unfortunately, thousands of tons of dirt (with artifacts one might imagine) has been removed (without archaeological supervision) from the Temple Mount and dumped in various areas over the last ten years. There are even archaeological rescue teams who then go to these dumps and set up camp to recover what they can find. Too bad we can't just rejoice in uncovering artifacts and history no matter whose "side" the material originates with! -CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Me, too. I'd also like to see what we could discover on the Temple Mount. Unfortunately, thousands of tons of dirt (with artifacts one might imagine) has been removed (without archaeological supervision) from the Temple Mount and dumped in various areas over the last ten years. There are even archaeological rescue teams who then go to these dumps and set up camp to recover what they can find. Too bad we can't just rejoice in uncovering artifacts and history no matter whose "side" the material originates with! Well, this is off topic, but it was done with supervision, just not the Israeli Antiquities Administration and it wasn't all technically above board. The Muslims control the whole area up there so they simply cleared the area for the tunnels. It should have all happened differently but seeing how they assert that there wasn't a temple there to begin with they contend this isn't a problem. Based on the small fraction of rubble that has been gone through so far...they're right. They've found plenty from the right temple period...only...no temple artifacts. Not just that but no artifacts of any kind related to the biblical stories even though there should be quite a large number. Now, the Muslims COULD have removed them before dumping but considering this was a massive amount of dumping by bulldozer it seems unlikely. The other possibilities are that they dug up dirt from the wrong place (some contend the temple was in a different part of the mount) but they should still find some related items. The will find some artifacts but the biblical accounts are simply "overstated" by their authors so expectations need to be adjusted downward. There was no temple during that time period and the whole thing was simply made up as a back story. Even if they go through all the rubble it won't give a conclusive answer to the question. A real excavation would need to occur...and that would probably just mean fighting (even if all sides agreed to it oddly enough). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
currentchristian Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 ...They will find some artifacts but the biblical accounts are simply "overstated" by their authors so expectations need to be adjusted downward. There was no temple during that time period and the whole thing was simply made up as a back story. For clarification: You are referring to the First Temple (Solomon's Temple), yes? Since we do not know for sure, for sure, for sure about these things, mwc, wouldn't it be more correct/scholarly/open-minded to say: "There probably was no temple during that time period and the whole thing probably was simply made up as back story"? -CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 For clarification: You are referring to the First Temple (Solomon's Temple), yes? Since we do not know for sure, for sure, for sure about these things, mwc, wouldn't it be more correct/scholarly/open-minded to say: "There probably was no temple during that time period and the whole thing probably was simply made up as back story"? Yes, that's the temple period in question and no, phrasing it that way would have been redundant as that was simply one of my set of possibilities so the "probably" was implied. I probably wasn't clear enough though (I probably should have itemized). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
currentchristian Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 For clarification: You are referring to the First Temple (Solomon's Temple), yes? Since we do not know for sure, for sure, for sure about these things, mwc, wouldn't it be more correct/scholarly/open-minded to say: "There probably was no temple during that time period and the whole thing probably was simply made up as back story"? Yes, that's the temple period in question and no, phrasing it that way would have been redundant as that was simply one of my set of possibilities so the "probably" was implied. I probably wasn't clear enough though (I probably should have itemized). mwc You, my friend, probably are right and I'll probably check back later today to see what's up! -CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 I responded before I read the entire thread and ended up repeating what others had said...sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyson Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 The Bible is missing 5 important words at the start of every one of its stories: Once upon a time there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
currentchristian Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 The Bible is missing 5 important words at the start of every one of its stories: Once upon a time there... And it came to pass....perhaps...is the biblical equivalent...? -CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 "And it came to pass..." does sound like the beginning of a fairy tale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts