"Evolucija i Veliki prasak su lazi iz pakla"

[Odahviing]

Sta imam ja da smatram ili ne otac mu se bavi naukom i to je to uopste mi nije jasno tvoje pitanje?

Nije naučnik onaj ko završi neku tamo školu i dobije diplomu, već onaj ko se stvarno bavi naukom i unaprećuje je istrašuje.

I ovo mi preciziraj kakve gluposti?

Konekretno za to 6. dana, rebro, proteravanje iz raja, zabranjeno drvo itd

[grigorije22]

Nije naučnik onaj ko završi neku tamo školu i dobije diplomu, već onaj ko se stvarno bavi naukom i unaprećuje je istrašuje.

On se bavi istrazivanjima mislim na razumem sta hoces da ti posaljem njegovu biografiju.

Konekretno za to 6. dana, rebro, proteravanje iz raja, zabranjeno drvo itd

Konkretno sta tebi nije jasno od ovoga sto si pobrojao.

[Odahviing]

Ne mogu da se pomirim sa tim da postoje ljudi koji su završili bilo koji oblik biologije i da još veruju u ovo. Ajde postojanje Boga to je Ok ali ovo iz gore navedenog. Shvataš li da to nema veze sa mozgom. Pa šta su oni završavali??? Brate to ti je isto kada bi ja sad završio fax rekao da el. struja ne nastaje usmerenim kretanjem slobodnih elektrona, već da su sve to laži plasirane iz pakla da bi ljudi prestali da veruju u pravu istinu ili šta god.

[Александар Милојков]

Konekretno za to 6. dana, rebro, proteravanje iz raja, zabranjeno drvo itd

Нису то глупости, већ фигура изражавања. Онај ко те слике буквално тумачу, а не тражи смисао реченог, је у проблему. Свети Оци су Постање ТУМАЧИЛИ.

[grigorije22]

Ne mogu da se pomirim sa tim da postoje ljudi koji su završili bilo koji oblik biologije i da još veruju u ovo. Ajde postojanje Boga to je Ok ali ovo iz gore navedenog. Shvataš li da to nema veze sa mozgom. Pa šta su oni završavali??? Brate to ti je isto kada bi ja sad završio fax rekao da el. struja ne nastaje usmerenim kretanjem slobodnih elektrona, već da su sve to laži plasirane iz pakla da bi ljudi prestali da veruju u pravu istinu ili šta god.

Na koga ti sad mislis ovde na ovog amerikanca republikanca ili na Ivanovog oca? Sto se tice Ivanovog oca ne poznajem coveka i ne znam u sta veruje i da li uopste veruje u nesto, ali ako te bas toliko zanima mogu da pitam Ivana. Njegov otac je evolucionista i ima 7-8 godina istrazivackog rada na brodovima.

[grigorije22]

Томино. Између 40 н.е и 140 н.е.

Ne vecina naucnika smatra da je ono nastalo polovinom drugog veka zato sto se dobro uklapa u kulturnu sredinu. To "jevandjelje" je bilo pod jakim uticajem gnosticizma religioznog pokreta iz drugog,treceg i cetvrtog veka. Tezu da je "Tomino jevandjelje" nastalo u 1 veku cak i pre kanonskih jevandjelja zastupa grupa naucnika pod nazivom Seminar o Isusu, gde su oni uzeli neke odeljke proizvoljno i izneli tvrdnju da ti odeljci predstavljaju ranu nit predanja o Isusu, raniju cak i od kanonskih jevandjelja

[grigorije22]

Управо тако. Марково је прво. А то што је Марково прво говори даље у прилог како су настала и остала Јеванђења, а нарочито Матејево гдје имају цитати из Септуагинте, што говори да је писац Матејевог Јеванђеља не Матеј, Јевреј, него неки Грк који уопште није познавао хебрејски ни арамејски језик и питање је да ли је икад посјетио Палестину. И то говори да сва Јеванђеља нису могла настати у првој генерацији људи који су лично дожвијели Христа већ касније, када се хришћанство прошило на римску империју крајем првог и почетком другог вијека, гдје је се говорио грчки језик. У прилог томе иду у неки стихови који наводе погрешну географију.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_wrote_Matthew%27s_Gospel

[Justin Waters]

http://wiki.answers....atthew's_Gospel

И шта је твоје мишљење ко је писац јеванђеља по Матеју, будући да текст даје више одговора. Један одговор на питање ко је аутор гласи: "Вјероватно Матеј". greengrin

[znatiželjan]

To da je svet stvoren onako kako je to Mojsije napisao inspirisan Božijim duhom se prihvata VEROM a ne tumači umom naštelovanim na evolucionističke frekvencije.

Apostol Pavle je verovao da je iskušenje pod koje je Eva potpala od strane zmije bilo bukvalno, pa je to i napisao:

Ali se bojim da kako, kao što je zmija svojim lukavstvom prevarila Evu, tako i misli vaše da se ne odvrate od proste vernosti Hristu. (2. Korinćanima 11:3)

Takodje, pisao je i: ''Tako je i napisano: Prvi čovek Adam posta duša živa; poslednji Adam posta duh koji oživljava'' 1. Korinćanima 15:45

Gospod Hristos je naravno znao ko je pisao Mojsijeve knjige, i sigurno je da nije bio obmanut povodom toga, kada je rekao:

A za mrtve, da ustaju, niste li čitali u knjizi Mojsijevoj, tamo gde je reč o kupini, kako mu reče Bog: Ja sam Bog Avramov i Bog Isakov i Bog Jakovljev? (Marko 12:26)

I apostol Pavle ponovo:

Jer Mojsije piše za pravednost koja je od zakona. "Koji čovek čini (nju), živeće od nje". (Rimljanima 10:5)

Čitava priča o naučnom istraživanju a u stvari podvrgnuću sumnji autoriteta Biblije i njegovih autora potiče od liberalnih krugova. Blažen je onaj koji prihvata reči Svetog pisma onako kako su i napisane.

Na koga ti sad mislis ovde na ovog amerikanca republikanca ili na Ivanovog oca? Sto se tice Ivanovog oca ne poznajem coveka i ne znam u sta veruje i da li uopste veruje u nesto, ali ako te bas toliko zanima mogu da pitam Ivana. Njegov otac je evolucionista i ima 7-8 godina istrazivackog rada na brodovima.

[Aquilius Cratus]

Znatizeljan ti bas volis da izbegavas odgovore na pitanja?!

https://www.pouke.org/forum/topic/21753-evolucija-i-veliki-prasak-su-lazi-iz-pakla/page__st__84#entry729748

[Aquilius Cratus]

.

[grigorije22]

И шта је твоје мишљење ко је писац јеванђеља по Матеју, будући да текст даје више одговора. Један одговор на питање ко је аутор гласи: "Вјероватно Матеј". greengrin

Nesumnjivo apostol Matej bez obzira sto postoje neke poteskoce

Matthew: Introduction, Argument, and Outline

Study By: Daniel B. Wallace

From the Series:

New Testament: Introductions and Outlines

Download Word Doc

I. Introduction

A. The Author

There are three pieces of evidence to consider if we are to arrive at any conclusion about the authorship of the first gospel: (1) the title, (2) external evidence, and (3) internal evidence. As will soon become apparent, not all of these categories bear equal weight.

1. The Title

• 
  

The titles of NT books were not part of the autograph, but were added later on the basis of tradition. Still, the tradition in this case is universal: every MS which contains Matthew has some sort of ascription to Matthew.¹ Some scholars suggest that this title was added as early as 125 CE.² The fact that every inscription to this gospel affirms that Matthew was the author coupled with the fact that nowhere does the author identify himself makes the tradition quite strong, but still short of proof.

2. External Evidence

• 
  

The earliest statement that Matthew wrote something is by Papias: “Instead [of writing in Greek], Matthew arranged the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and each man interpreted them as he was able.”³ We have already discussed some of the possibilities of what Papias referred to in this statement.⁴ It may be helpful, in this place, to outline the general views: (1) “the oracles” (taV logiva) = the Gospel of Matthew; (2) “the oracles” = a sayings source (like Q); (3) Papias is not speaking about the Hebrew dialect, but he uses dialevkto" to mean “literary fashion”; thus, Matthew arranged his Gospel along Jewish-Christian lines; (4) Papias was wrong.

Although it is quite impossible to decide conclusively what Papias meant since we are wholly dependent on Eusebius for any excerpts from this early second century writer, some general considerations are in order: (1) Papias probably was not referring to the Gospel, since we have no trace of it in Hebrew or Aramaic until the medieval ages (all of which are clearly translations of the Greek, at least as far as most scholars are concerned). This view, therefore, is shipwrecked on early textual evidence. Further, Matthew does not show strong evidence of being translation Greek. (2) Some have suggested therefore (as an expedient to salvage the first view) that Papias was referring to Matthew’s literary method, rather than linguistics, but such is by no means a natural interpretation of dialevkto". (3) Although Papias could have been wrong—and he was a man of meager intelligence (according to Eusebius)!—he is sufficiently early and well-connected with apostolic Christianity that he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. (4) The best option, in our view, is that Papias was referring to a sayings source which Matthew wrote. If so, then Matthew in all probability incorporated this source into his gospel, after rearranging it.⁵ As we suggested in our section on the Synoptic Problem, this sayings source may well have constituted a portion of Q.⁶ In any event, the great probability is that Papias is referring to the apostle Matthew as an author of material on the life of Jesus. Whether this is proto-Matthew, Q, or Matthew, Matthean authorship of the first gospel is either directly or indirectly supported by the statement.

After Papias, Irenaeus wrote: “Now Matthew published also a book of the Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church.”⁷ It is obvious that Irenaeus got the gist of this information from Papias (since he was acquainted with his work), though he does add two interesting points: (1) the audience of Matthew’s work was the Jews (or Jewish Christians); (2) the time when this work was written was during Peter and Paul’s tenure in Rome. In light of Irenaeus’ dependence on Papias (as well as his interpretation of his statement), this part of the tradition does not receive an independent testimony.⁸ But Irenaeus adds the interesting point that the time when Matthew wrote this was when Peter and Paul were in Rome. This may be no more than a guess, for other information in the statement seems false.⁹ On the other hand, since Peter and Paul were not in Rome together until the early 60s, this may well help us to fix a date for Matthew’s Gospel, provided that this tradition has other corroborative evidence.

Still later, Origen assumed that Matthew penned his Gospel originally in Hebrew. However, Origen adds nothing to what Papias has said, and may well have assumed that Papias was speaking about the Gospel rather than a sayings source. After Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine and others echoed the opinion of Matthean authorship.

The early external testimony is universal on two points: (1) Matthew wrote something related to the life of Jesus Christ; and (2) Matthew wrote in a Semitic tongue. Little, if any, independent testimony exists however for the supposition that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic. Nevertheless, the attachment of the name of Matthew to the first gospel may well indicate that it ultimately goes back to him, even if completed by a later compiler.

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.

One final comment about external evidence should be added. Although there is always the possibility of a vested interest on the part of patristic writers to seek apostolic authorship for the anonymous books of the NT, this does not explain why Matthew and no other apostle was ever suggested for the first gospel. Indeed, not only was Matthew by no means the most prominent of the apostles, but he also would not seem to be as qualified as some others to write to Jewish Christians, in light of his former occupation. Would not Andrew or Philip or Bartholomew have been more likely candidates if an apostolic author were merely a figment of the early church? None of them had the stigma of having been in league with the Romans, and all figured more prominently in the gospel narratives. What is especially impressive is that Matthew and Matthew alone was suggested as the author of the first gospel.

3. Internal Evidence

• 
  

The following are seven pieces of internal evidence which suggest, first, that the author was a Jew, and second, that he was Matthew.¹⁰

• a. Familiarity with the Nation
  
  • 
    

The author was familiar with geography (2:23), Jewish customs (cf. 1:18-19), Jewish history (he calls Herod Antipas “tetrarch” instead of “king”). He displays a concern for the OT law (5:17-20) and puts an emphasis on the evangelistic mission to the Jewish nation as well (ch. 10). The evidence is quite strong for authorship by a Jew.¹¹

• b. Hints of Semitisms in his Language
  
  • 
    

There are relatively few Semitic traces in Matthew, though one might note the heavy use of tovte (89 times), as compared with Mark (6) and Luke (15), perhaps harking back to the Hebrew za.¹² Beyond this, there is the occasional asyndeton¹³ (a mark of Aramaic influence), use of the indefinite plural (1:23; 7:16), etc. Although Matthew’s Greek is less Semitic than Mark’s, it does betray traces of Semitisms at times—even where none exists in the Markan parallel. If Matthew did write this gospel, one might not expect many Semitisms since Matthew was a tax-collector and would therefore have to be conversant in Greek as well as Hebrew/Aramaic. But the fact of some Semitisms suggests either that the writer was a Jew or that his sources were Semitic. Yet, some of these are so much a part of the fabric of his gospel (e.g., tovte) that it is more reasonable to suppose that the author was himself a Jew.

• c. His Use of Scripture
  
  • 
    

Gundry has ably pointed out how the author used the OT, especially in his formula quotations. Although there are many OT citations which correspond to the LXX rendering, his own introductory formulae (which are not found in either Mark or Luke) all seem to be free translations of the Hebrew.¹⁴ If so, then the author most probably is a Jew. Further, he shows great familiarity with contemporary Jewish exegesis in how he uses the scriptures.¹⁵

• d. Attack on Pharisees
  
  • 
    

Matthew’s Gospel attacks the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders more than Mark or Luke do (cf. 3:7 16:6, 11, 12; ch. 23). Perhaps the reason for this was, in part, due to how hard these religious leaders were on the tax-collectors (they associated them with sinners and Gentiles). Not much can be made of this however.

• e. Frequent Use of Numbers
  
  • 
    

The author’s frequent use of numbers would be natural for a tax-collector. He divides things into three parts: the genealogy, the trilogies of miracles in chapters 8-9; five parts: five great sermons of Jesus, all with the same closing formula (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1); six corrections on the misuse of the Law (in chapter 5); seven woes, parables (ch. 13); etc. Again, not much can be made of this argument, else one would have to say that a tax-collector wrote the Apocalypse! But at least it is consistent with who Matthew was.

• f. His Mention of Money
  
  • 
    

A more weighty argument is the author’s frequent reference to money—more frequent than the other gospel writers in fact. He uses unique monetary terms (drachma in 17:24; stater in 17:25; talent in 18:24, 25); he alone of the synoptists speaks of gold and silver; Matthew contains the only two parables on talents (chs. 18, 25); and he uses tax-collector-type terminology (“debts” in 6:12 where the Lukan parallel has “sins”); “bankers” (25:27), etc. Especially when one compares the synoptic parallels, Matthew’s use of monetary terms seems significant. The most reasonable hypothesis for this is that the author was quite familiar with money.

• g. The Calling of Levi
  
  • 
    

Both Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27-28 speak of the calling of “Levi” while Matthew 9:9 calls him “Matthew.” But all the lists of the apostles refer to him as Matthew (Matt 10, Mark 3, Luke 6, Acts 1).¹⁶ Yet, what is remarkable is that only in the first gospel is Matthew called “the tax-collector” in the list of apostles. It may well be that the author is showing humility in this reference. In the least, however, Matthew’s Gospel is the only one which identifies the tax-collector whom Jesus called with Matthew the apostle. The most logical reason that the writer felt such liberty with his Markan source was because he knew of the identification personally.

Thus he could either be Matthew himself or an associate who later compiled the work. Against the compiler theory is Matt 9:9, which records the calling of Matthew: “it is significant that it is more self-deprecating than Luke’s account, which says that Matthew ‘left everything’ and followed Jesus”¹⁷ while Matthew simply says that he got up and followed Jesus. If the first gospel were not by Matthew, one would be at a loss to explain why the author seemed to deprecate Matthew in such subtle ways. A later compiler who knew and respected Matthew (probably a disciple of his), or worse, a “school of St. Matthew,” simply does not fit the bill.¹⁸

In sum, each piece of evidence is hardly weighty on its own. But taken together, there is a cumulative impression made on the reader that a bilingual Palestinian Jew, well acquainted with money, wrote this gospel. External testimony has already suggested Matthew as the author; the internal evidence does nothing to shake this impression. There is, therefore, little reason to doubt Matthean authorship.

4. Objections to Matthean Authorship

• 
  

There are three primary objections to Matthean authorship, listed in descending order of value: (1) the improbable use of Mark by an apostle; (2) the high quality of the Greek of the gospel; and (3) the nonbiographical structure of the book.

(1) Assuming Markan priority, would an apostle use a gospel written by a non-apostle, or even any written source? This is not as weighty an argument as it appears, for “if Matthew thought Mark’s account reliable and generally suited to his purposes (and he may have known that Peter stood behind it), there can be no objection to the view that an apostle depended on a nonapostolic document.”¹⁹

This is analogous to the Revised Version translators (1881) using the King James Version. They intentionally supported the tradition of the KJV, and in fact wanted to emulate its translation wherever possible. However, they deviated from it in three distinct ways: (a) they wanted the new work to be based on more ancient MSS; (B) they had a better grasp of the Greek than did the KJV translators and sought to make a more accurate translation even where the textual basis was identical; © they wanted to remove archaisms which were no longer clearly understood. The motivation behind the RV was “to make a good thing better.” What is most significant for our purposes is the fact that even though the RV translators knew Greek much better than did the KJV translators and had earlier MSS to work with, they still wanted to keep in line with the KJV tradition as much as possible. The analogy with Matthew and Mark is obvious: even though Matthew was an eyewitness, he wanted to use Mark’s Gospel as much as possible, both to affirm its reliability and as a ready framework for the sermons of Jesus; but he also wanted to correct its grammar in places, and supplement it with pertinent information in other places.²⁰

(2) Kümmel adds three other arguments: “the systematic and therefore nonbiographical form of the structure of Mt, the late-apostolic theological position, and the Greek language of Mt make this proposal completely impossible.”²¹ Of these, only the first and third are really weighty, for the lateness of the theology is so intertwined with the supposedly late dates of other NT books and assumptions of uniformly linear development that it carries little conviction.²² Of the other two considerations, one will be dealt with here and the other will take up our last point.

The high quality of the Greek is hardly an argument against Matthean authorship, for Matthew would have to have known both Aramaic and Greek in order to collect taxes from the Jews and work for the Romans.²³ Further, there is a growing consensus that Galilee of the first century was thoroughly bilingual—so much so that Greek was probably the native tongue of most Jews. ²⁴

(3) “The systematic and nonbiographical” structure of Matthew²⁵ does not preclude Matthean authorship. Such is a non sequitur because “(1) a topically ordered account can yield biographical facts as easily as a strictly chronological account, and (2) Kümmel wrongly supposes that apostolicity is for some reason incapable of choosing anything other than a chronological framework.”²⁶

5. Conclusion on Authorship

• 
  

Although there are some difficulties with Matthean authorship, none of them presents major obstacles, in spite of some scholars calling Matthean authorship “impossible.” On the positive side, the universal external evidence which seems to lack motivation for the choice of Matthew (as opposed to any other apostle), coupled with the subtle internal evidence, makes the traditional view still the most plausible one

[Guest]

To da je svet stvoren onako kako je to Mojsije napisao inspirisan Božijim duhom se prihvata VEROM a ne tumači umom naštelovanim na evolucionističke frekvencije.

Svaka čast normalnim vernicima, ali ako bih imao veru se suprotstavlja razumu i koja negira dokazane činjenicame, ja bih tu veru odbacio kao poslednju budalaštinu.

Blažen je onaj koji prihvata reči Svetog pisma onako kako su i napisane.

Blažen je onaj ko nema mozga. Upravo to pravljenje vrline od neznanja i prihvatanja autoriteta za nesumnjivu istinu, što rade mnogi vernici (pa čak i Pravoslavne vere) mi je bio prvi korak ka odbacivanju vere.

[Milan Nikolic]

Еволуција је чињеница као и сијање Сунца. Познавање принципа еволуције је минимум за сваку научну методу.

Не знам зашто би хришћани били препаднути бројкама од милионе или милијарде година. Некада је свакако морао да буде почетак ма у каквом облику.

Било какво научно сазнање не може бити опасност по теологију. Једино што теологија мора то је да заузме исправан став, а пре свега да се не залеће са тумачењима.

[znatiželjan]

Nigde u bibliji ne piše da se sunce okreće oko zemlje. A alegorije su alegorije...naravno da priča o gorušičinom zrnu nije ispričana da bi neko učio botaniku...

Ok, znaci poucne price su alegorijske a ono sto pisac Pisma pise kao hronologiju to se zaista tako bukvalno desilo?! Znaci li to da ti

zaista verujes da se Sunce okrece oko Zemlje? I ako ne kada se odigrala rokada?