| Why are there so many "religious" players now? 13:31 - Sep 13 with 10847 views | Meadowlark |
Do any of our players point to the sky when they walk on to the pitch?
Ive just been watching MOTD and there's quite a lot of this nonsense.
|  | | |  |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 18:03 - Sep 15 with 399 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 17:59 - Sep 15 by Vic |
When Jesus said this he said he was summarising the rules that had governed the Jewish people for the 1500yrs since their inception as a nation.
The Bible ref to Jesus saying this is Matthew 7v12 |
So is there an earlier Hebrew reference? Or just a claim. I'm not sure that just because an anonymous source, who was not there and was writing with religious purpose, claimed jesus said that it summed up the "law of the prophets", that establishes it as a thing thousands of years earlier... It doesn't sum up the law of the prophets for a start (assuming that is a reference to essentially the entirety of the old testament rules and commands). The closest is in Leviticus.
Good luck arguing in reliance on that book's morality!
Either way, as I said, it makes no difference to the point made. Which is it is not unique to christendom and was established independently, far away/. [Post edited 15 Sep 18:07]
|  |
| |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 18:20 - Sep 15 with 377 views | Vic |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 18:03 - Sep 15 by redrickstuhaart |
So is there an earlier Hebrew reference? Or just a claim. I'm not sure that just because an anonymous source, who was not there and was writing with religious purpose, claimed jesus said that it summed up the "law of the prophets", that establishes it as a thing thousands of years earlier... It doesn't sum up the law of the prophets for a start (assuming that is a reference to essentially the entirety of the old testament rules and commands). The closest is in Leviticus.
Good luck arguing in reliance on that book's morality!
Either way, as I said, it makes no difference to the point made. Which is it is not unique to christendom and was established independently, far away/. [Post edited 15 Sep 18:07]
|
The earlier reference is basically the 10 commandments in Exodus 20 the wider, more detailed explanation of them in Leviticus. Jesus reference to the 'prophets' refers to the Jewish teachers from that time until approx 450BC.
Theres pretty good historical evidence that Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus. There is another very early source that refers to Jesus saying this ie, 'Luke' 6v31, whi as well as being a non jewish Dr who lived at the same time and who specifically checked out the verbal stories about Jesus, cross referencing them to check reliability.
Two contemporary sources of something that long ago is generally accepted as decent evidence of something.
Id say thats good evidence that it predates Cinfucious and make it much more likely that he was taking a Jewish concept into his own thinking. [Post edited 15 Sep 18:23]
|  |
| |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 18:32 - Sep 15 with 344 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 18:20 - Sep 15 by Vic |
The earlier reference is basically the 10 commandments in Exodus 20 the wider, more detailed explanation of them in Leviticus. Jesus reference to the 'prophets' refers to the Jewish teachers from that time until approx 450BC.
Theres pretty good historical evidence that Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus. There is another very early source that refers to Jesus saying this ie, 'Luke' 6v31, whi as well as being a non jewish Dr who lived at the same time and who specifically checked out the verbal stories about Jesus, cross referencing them to check reliability.
Two contemporary sources of something that long ago is generally accepted as decent evidence of something.
Id say thats good evidence that it predates Cinfucious and make it much more likely that he was taking a Jewish concept into his own thinking. [Post edited 15 Sep 18:23]
|
Then my point stands doesn't it? The idea is not unique to christendom. It was alive and well elsewhere in a completely different culture.
An oblique and incorrect reference to the golden rule "summing up the law of the prophets" in Matthew does not mean, even if everything else you say is correct, that the idea was popular much earlier. At best it shows that someone, claimed that it was, at the time of Jesus. But even that claim is not contemporaneous.
In fact (and I am sure you know this) Matthew was originally anonymous and given that name much later on. Really no good reason to think it was written by an eye witness of any sort, let alone a disciple. Not many scholars make a serious case for it being written by Matthew the disciple. Of course, we also know it wasn't written until after 70CE or thereabouts and even then, was based on Mark...
The exodus 20 commandments don't include the golden rule. But they do prevent the making of graven images, which most churches don't seem troubled by - another matter for another time perhaps. | |
| |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 18:51 - Sep 15 with 313 views | eireblue |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 14:47 - Sep 15 by Vic |
Interesting that treating others like we'd like them to trust us is something straight out of Jesus mouth, which he took from the instructions God gVe to 'his people' way back when he'd just rescued them from Egypt. Not many, if any, cultures had that in their locker.
Its a perfect illustration of how the Judeo/christian principles undergird so much of what we just takes for granted as traditiobal western culture, which is the thesis of historian Tom Holland's book 'Dominion'. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lots of people had that in their locker. |  | | |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 18:51 - Sep 15 with 313 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 18:32 - Sep 15 by redrickstuhaart |
Then my point stands doesn't it? The idea is not unique to christendom. It was alive and well elsewhere in a completely different culture.
An oblique and incorrect reference to the golden rule "summing up the law of the prophets" in Matthew does not mean, even if everything else you say is correct, that the idea was popular much earlier. At best it shows that someone, claimed that it was, at the time of Jesus. But even that claim is not contemporaneous.
In fact (and I am sure you know this) Matthew was originally anonymous and given that name much later on. Really no good reason to think it was written by an eye witness of any sort, let alone a disciple. Not many scholars make a serious case for it being written by Matthew the disciple. Of course, we also know it wasn't written until after 70CE or thereabouts and even then, was based on Mark...
The exodus 20 commandments don't include the golden rule. But they do prevent the making of graven images, which most churches don't seem troubled by - another matter for another time perhaps. |
Nice downvotes.
"I don't like what the man said. It can't be right. I don't believe it". | |
| |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 18:52 - Sep 15 with 312 views | eireblue |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 15:36 - Sep 15 by Ryorry |
If you take veganism as an example, the difference is that veganism (or whatever other non-religious example) doesn't run state schools, have official holidays that are recognised world-wide, have upper house Parliamentary membership for its senior leaders, isn't afforded special status or respect etc etc.
I think some people on the thread aren't recognising the completely different status that religion is given - not just in the UK, but globally. |
Yet. | | | |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 19:03 - Sep 15 with 295 views | Vic |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 18:32 - Sep 15 by redrickstuhaart |
Then my point stands doesn't it? The idea is not unique to christendom. It was alive and well elsewhere in a completely different culture.
An oblique and incorrect reference to the golden rule "summing up the law of the prophets" in Matthew does not mean, even if everything else you say is correct, that the idea was popular much earlier. At best it shows that someone, claimed that it was, at the time of Jesus. But even that claim is not contemporaneous.
In fact (and I am sure you know this) Matthew was originally anonymous and given that name much later on. Really no good reason to think it was written by an eye witness of any sort, let alone a disciple. Not many scholars make a serious case for it being written by Matthew the disciple. Of course, we also know it wasn't written until after 70CE or thereabouts and even then, was based on Mark...
The exodus 20 commandments don't include the golden rule. But they do prevent the making of graven images, which most churches don't seem troubled by - another matter for another time perhaps. |
Sorry readers, but thats incorrect at mant levels. Confident assertions dobt change the facts! Confusions was 1000 yrs after the giving of Jewish law, which, as well as detailing how they were to respect God was also about how they treated others. This was unique at the time- there was - as far as we know, no other coded law similar and with such high moral standards, at the time.
Regarding Matthew - Papias, Iraneuas & Origen, (all hugely influential and respected Church leaders in the very early days - as I suspect you know ;) all considered the writer to be the Apostle Matthew. That he used Mark is of little importance to this debate. However, that it was written around 79-80AD id hugely significant, not only because of the contents, but because of its proximity to the events. (A huge factor in assessing the likely reliability of a ancient document. Again, I suspect you know that.
Anyway, good debate, but shall we leave it there? Theres a match on - lets enjoy that together as Town fans. COYB! | |
| |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 19:18 - Sep 15 with 278 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 19:03 - Sep 15 by Vic |
Sorry readers, but thats incorrect at mant levels. Confident assertions dobt change the facts! Confusions was 1000 yrs after the giving of Jewish law, which, as well as detailing how they were to respect God was also about how they treated others. This was unique at the time- there was - as far as we know, no other coded law similar and with such high moral standards, at the time.
Regarding Matthew - Papias, Iraneuas & Origen, (all hugely influential and respected Church leaders in the very early days - as I suspect you know ;) all considered the writer to be the Apostle Matthew. That he used Mark is of little importance to this debate. However, that it was written around 79-80AD id hugely significant, not only because of the contents, but because of its proximity to the events. (A huge factor in assessing the likely reliability of a ancient document. Again, I suspect you know that.
Anyway, good debate, but shall we leave it there? Theres a match on - lets enjoy that together as Town fans. COYB! |
80CE was 50 years after the alleged events. Most people then didn't live that long assuming a disciple was, say 20, at the time of the events.
How reliable do you think someone's witness testimony is after 5 years, or 10, let alone 50?
I am surprised that you seek to argue what you do.
You know that:
1- the vast majority of serious scholars (the majority of who are theists) will tell you that all of the gospels are anonymous, and that none were written by eye witnesses or disciples. A conservative few argue for authorship by matthew a disciple. It is interesting that you sidestep that and continue to make claims which put you in the minority even amongst informed christians.
2- Even if everything you say was granted, none of this points to the golden rule being established much earlier than confucius. You have a reference in 80CE, to jesus saying something in 30CE which connected the golden rule to the law of the prophets. The law of the prophets does not contain the golden rule. It is conspicuous by its absence. At best this is evidence for someone *claiming* in 30CE that there was a conection between the golden rule and older times. It does not prove or address the claim itself.
3 The golden rule still emerged independently far away, and it is simply not reasonable to claim it for Christianity... | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 19:22 - Sep 15 with 271 views | Vic |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 19:18 - Sep 15 by redrickstuhaart |
80CE was 50 years after the alleged events. Most people then didn't live that long assuming a disciple was, say 20, at the time of the events.
How reliable do you think someone's witness testimony is after 5 years, or 10, let alone 50?
I am surprised that you seek to argue what you do.
You know that:
1- the vast majority of serious scholars (the majority of who are theists) will tell you that all of the gospels are anonymous, and that none were written by eye witnesses or disciples. A conservative few argue for authorship by matthew a disciple. It is interesting that you sidestep that and continue to make claims which put you in the minority even amongst informed christians.
2- Even if everything you say was granted, none of this points to the golden rule being established much earlier than confucius. You have a reference in 80CE, to jesus saying something in 30CE which connected the golden rule to the law of the prophets. The law of the prophets does not contain the golden rule. It is conspicuous by its absence. At best this is evidence for someone *claiming* in 30CE that there was a conection between the golden rule and older times. It does not prove or address the claim itself.
3 The golden rule still emerged independently far away, and it is simply not reasonable to claim it for Christianity... |
Looks like we'll agree to disagree on this one :). Others have debated this stuff for much.longer than us, on bigger stages than a footie message board - we're unlikely to succeed where they failed. But good to share ideas. | |
| |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 19:25 - Sep 15 with 258 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 19:22 - Sep 15 by Vic |
Looks like we'll agree to disagree on this one :). Others have debated this stuff for much.longer than us, on bigger stages than a footie message board - we're unlikely to succeed where they failed. But good to share ideas. |
I am pretty confident that you are knowledgeable enough to know those three bullet points are true, but I will leave it there. | |
| |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 19:29 - Sep 15 with 246 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 17:59 - Sep 15 by Vic |
When Jesus said this he said he was summarising the rules that had governed the Jewish people for the 1500yrs since their inception as a nation.
The Bible ref to Jesus saying this is Matthew 7v12 |
This religion malarkey sounds as complicated as FIFA’s Laws of the Game. Someone should write a book about it! |  |
| |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 20:36 - Sep 15 with 205 views | Vic |
| Why are there so many "religious" players now? on 19:25 - Sep 15 by redrickstuhaart |
I am pretty confident that you are knowledgeable enough to know those three bullet points are true, but I will leave it there. |
OK, I'll bite! Let's just say that its quite the opposite, as i think ive demonstrated. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
