Good job, so organized and so fast, did you get AI assistance?
-
I didn't say it was the first form of the NT, as there are Syriac Priorists who think it was. I said if part of Matthew was the first writing of the gospel it resolves many problems and actually creates none.
-
There were no more deviations between Aramaic and Greek Matthew than those we currently observe in the manuscripts we have (as you point to in paragraph 1), which are not much different from those between one gospel and another or one manuscript of the same gospel and another. Confirmation without overemphasis on perfect verbatim copying (unlike the OT) was indicated by their practices as sufficient.
-
The solution resolves the debate between Markan and Matthaean priority; Matthew started first, Mark finished first. Matthew's passion is in simpler language than his extended sermons.
-
The textual evidence is the Peshitta into which Mattai would have been enfolded, and the historical testimony is Irenaeus, Papias, and Eusebius, as stated already. See what they said about Matthaean priority. There is no strain in credibility when conservatives see all three synoptics (plus Acts) in the same short window; I merely add that not only Luke but also Matthew had two occasions to write at length.
You sound insistent on rejecting something new to you. That's why I started by telling people to relax because it doesn't really matter for most purposes. Unless someone is up against one of those higher critics who is insistent on discrediting the authors and historical testimonies so as to feel comfortable about some imaginary invention. I answer all the imaginary inventions by supplying one already-known document and saying it's the real Q instead of the imagined inaccessible one. But if you'd rather live in a JEDPR+ alphabet world where each imaginer proposes his new vision of things that do not exist, feel free. I haven't bound you by telling you the evidence.
This is why I tell people to take my word for it, because the proof that would be satisfactory would take too long.
While your data is essentially correct, the issue is where the data leads. All the extant Peshitta traditions indicate a very early original tradition for the whole of the NT, about 200. My proposal is that this tradition exists because Matthew wrote an uninspired passion draft in Aramaic (which I call "Mattai") before he wrote the full Greek text we have copies of today. To this original Aramaic would have been later added translations of the other gospels, along with translation of anything in the Greek not in the shorter Aramaic draft. This is evidenced by the testimony of Irenaeus (two generations after John) and Papias that Matthew wrote first in a Hebraic tongue, and the counterevidence that it's believed Mark completed first; it resolves the apparent contradiction. Then Mattai, Mark, and Matthew are all composed in the 50-65 range, just when early Q dating is placed.
The Q hypothesis was actually intended to make Mark and Matthew much later than Q, say in the 90s. It was supposed to put many layers (adding the imaginary M and L; I've seen one version with 6 layers!) between our copies and the originals to cast doubt on the originals. But the real solution to the synoptic problem is much easier, namely that there is no problem because Mark and Matthew built on each other. So I'm saying the first document of the Peshitta was Mattai and it was a draft of Matthew before it was completed in Greek. This also accounts for the minute textual data and the apparent disappearance of Q: it didn't disappear, its tradition got mixed into tradition of translating from Greek into Aramaic so that you couldn't easily tell one source from another looking at a Peshitta document. Plus, it removes the temptation for the higher critics to push for extra late dates because it upholds the conservative dates and gives the simplest explanation for all the evidence.
Mattai is written independently; Mark translates and builds on Mattai, sounding Hebraic but in Greek; Matthew builds on Mark with new apostolic detail; Luke has both and supplies additional material from Mary and from someone in the Perean ministry while also having many minor agreements with Matthew not in Mark, and Luke IIRC was the best chronologer when there were discrepancies of ordering narratives. Zero unattested sources, compared to three to six.
But I only say that in case people are listening, nobody has to take my word for it.
A primary reason for the mainstream church tradition is the good Eastern Christian tradition that Jesus was baptized on January 6 (in Tybi), and this celebration was connected to his birth very early, thus giving rise to the later 4th-century published date of December 25.
However, earlier evidence for December 25 itself is conflicting, with manuscripts of Hippolytus varying among themselves, and with Clement of Alexandria being unhelpful as usual. Clement's Stromata has Christ's birth as 194 years, 1 month, 13 days before the death of Commodus (31 Dec 193 AD), implying mid-November of 2 BC. Hippolytus's Canon has Jesus's genesis on 2 April of 2 BC, though "genesis" may mean either birth or conception. So the author seems to support a backdating, using Hippolytus's other statements, to conception around 25 March of 4 BC, birth 25 December of 4 BC, which is not too far off from my preferred date of birth 6 October of 4 BC.
This source has rawer data than I've seen and so it's worth pursuit, and it also doesn't do a severe injustice to the concerns I've raised before, so being open-minded I'll need to look more into it. One difficulty is the shepherds in the field and the other non-winter activities of the narrative; another is the timing of John's birth to accord with the Levitical cycles governing Zechariah's service. So I appreciate your goading me to look into this and find more to the story, and I'll keep these traditions in mind moving forward. If I do need to make changes to account for everything I've seen, I'll publish that; but for now there's not sufficient data to overturn my initial presumptions.
I've heard that one (Jupiter-Venus) and once had it on my short list. Now Jesus was born before Herod died, which is before Archelaus succeeded him and put down a rebellion on the day of Passover (the spring full moon), according to Josephus. He then has Archelaus deposed in his 10th year, which everyone has as 6 AD, the rebellion of Judas of Galilee (mentioned in Acts by Gamaliel) and the renaming of Idumea as part of Judaea. There was no zero year, so it appears Archelaus began reigning in 4 BC and not after June of 2 BC. Unless something in this paragraph is wrong.
Add: The data about December 25 is relatively accurate. However, God always anticipates things and set up Hanukkah around the winter solstice as well, which was prophesied by Daniel and the date by Haggai 2. So there's always God's older witness to anything counterfeited.
Not if they contradict the evidence, fren. The evidence is that the magi followed a star they could see at the beginning and the end of the trip.
Perhaps I'm speaking too fast because it's true that new information becomes available, but what I meant is that new information doesn't allow us to redefine old information that has always been interpreted literally.
Now I don't mean any disrespect I have for Martin and his followers to spill over here. So don't read that in. If you want to debate I have time, now and then, and am open-minded. We both have things to learn about this.
I like to say, just to provoke people, that Jesus was born on 6 October of 4 BC, Julian. At 3 in the morning. It was the first day of Tabernacles, and he was tabernacling among us.
Satanists sacrifice on any old day and they are adept at making up excuses to sacrifice, whether or not they are true. Don't listen to that channel. They want to claim all the days for themselves, but this is why we learn that all the days are already ours and we just need to revive our claims. I don't have evidence that Julian-Gregorian 9/11 is statistically more suspicious than other days.
Yes, the conjunctions are correct, but the idea that God wants us to date things via methods that nobody knew about at the time and that were not visible to the magi is suspect to me. IIRC the idea is that Jupiter was in Virgo the same time as the sun in fall of 3 BC; but in that case nobody could see Jupiter at the time or cared its exact route through Virgo! (If my memory is off the argument is still valid.)
What did the people actually believe at the time? For instance, they believed that Elijah would come at Passover; and when John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah it's likely that he was born at Passover and Jesus was born 6 months later. Now this one actually could be used either way, fall of 4 BC in my view, or fall of 3 BC in Martin's view, but the point is that there's a belief that we know was extant and that supports the time of year (against those putting Jesus's birth in spring or winter).
But when we investigate what the magi believed, it comes down to the star rising out of Jacob being a sign of the Messiah. This star was visible at night when they were completing their search, according to Luke, the greatest historian of his time. But Jupiter wasn't visible at Martin's time, its position could only be approximated by calculation (I could be wrong!).
OTOH Josephus gives a sign that everyone knew, the lunar eclipse of the full moon in March of 4 BC. This was during the illness of Herod from which he died, and that period can't be made too tight or too loose. After he died, Archelaus put down a Passover rebellion as one of his first acts: data indicates this was spring of 3 BC and cannot be pushed to spring of 2 BC. Both those data points are astronomical and hard to vary. Thus my skepticism.
The sign of the woman, sun, moon, and stars was given to us 100 years after Jesus's birth, not given to the generation of his parents. It indicates both interpretation of age-old things and also events still to come. We are free to try to use it for many interpretations, but we are not free to contradict more direct evidence, and we are not free to say they anticipated it in ways contrary to what evidence suggests they believed. I'm very opinionated, so take me with a grain of salt, but when I can chime in on a subject where I have knowledge then I put in a bit of effort.
No, I don't think Jesus was born on 11 September 3 BC because Martin didn't sufficiently take into account the reign of Archelaus, who came to power before Passover in spring 3 BC, after Jesus's birth. If you push Archelaus too far forward it messes with harmony with established later reigns.
Did the planners set the date to match Martin's date? Probably not, they probably went for the NANPA selection of "911" as an emergency number, and if they had any secondary intent there it wasn't likely relevant. (Of course we can always take spiritual instruction from coincidence, but that doesn't make it the primary or secondary human point.)
The idea that the two towers also represented "11" is just passable enough as a secondary tie-in, especially given the meaning of the two pillars in Masonry; but this too doesn't speak to the birth of Jesus.
We can certainly infer that the placement of Jesus's birth in the winter solstice (when shepherds never watched their flocks by night) was a guided mistake that hasn't yet been rectified fully. But this is an effect of the church calendar templated over the Julian, not an effect of the Julian or Gregorian directly. Many things were done to hide earlier things, but history can be sufficiently discerned.
Ultimately what symbolism was chosen consciously, and what by spiritual forces of "coincidence", isn't that important. Getting the truth is, and that is best done in a community of voices following the Spirit of God. In pursuing the truth I've come to recognize a number of reasons for putting Jesus's birth about a year earlier (search "chronology" at c/Christianity for too many details), and have never found Martin or expositors to have accounted all the data. But I'm open because there are still new lines to investigate. The truth is never far from any of us, and so the simplest step is to remember that Jesus invites us to join him and that is done by accepting his Spirit guiding us into all truth. That suffices to sustain us in all search.
There is no document that people point to as "Q", it's entirely hypothetical.
Therefore take my word for it, the only document that should qualify as Q is the Syriac version of Matthew, found in the Peshitta. It's a well-known text but its power to be Q has been totally ignored.
The only reason Wikipedia mentions "QAnon" is to keep people from being confused, so don't be confused.
I didn't look into this story until just now because its "smell" and my past acquaintance with Bondi's history suggested something was off.
Sure enough, the primary assertion of the OP article is false or misleading, despite the author's greater familiarity, when he says: "Knowing it was a case of self-defense, she appointed a corrupt special prosecutor ...." The fact is that Governor Rick Scott was the one making the appointment and seizing the glory for prosecutor Angela Corey. Bondi, speaker Dean Cannon, Matt Gaetz's father Don, and others were all brought in and consulted only for the point that there needed to be a Trayvon Martin task force, not for their views about the result of the Zimmerman trial.
Given the spotlight that Scott and Corey seized and that they only shared with Bondi, which would be natural given her position and not overdone on her behalf, I don't think it's fitting given this data for the sources to throw the entire Zimmerman prosecution at Bondi's feet. If there were (and there was) a conspiracy to inflame the nation with a handy self-defense trial, any inside job on it would have fallen at Scott's feet first. When long ago I discovered Scott was a pharma billionaire, I categorized him as low as Rubio. Roger Stone was right that Hulk Hogan would've been better for US Senate than Scott!
I will keep in mind the Katrina report and keep an open mind. To me, Lindsay Graham looks like he was finally put in submission by white hats, so his endorsement seems fine, and Jeb has always shifted with the winds. Keep digging frens!
TIL Q uses "MIGA" to mean "Make Iran Great Again". Seems preemptive of something else. Not exploring that trail right now.
Somehow I thought Elon said "minors"!
What is Minnie Mouse's middle finger doing? Add: That red arrow thingy is very sus. Rock band AC/DC was once reputed to stand for "All Christians' Death Council"; the term now also means bisexual. Two dollar signs perpetuate the ancient caducei. That red-black symbol in upper right might just be a number like "91", but it might be interpreted as three-quarters of a swastika (the colors are right). Just a little autistic response there.
I like answering questions. AMA.
The earth is 6,016 years and 2 months old. It's an oblate spheroid. We are not alone in the universe. There is a universe. It's also indistinguishable from a simulation.
We were created via preexisting order. Nonlife became ordered life (including Rh-) via preexisting life; it happened too fast to be called evolution. It shouldn't be called microevolution either, it's continuous environmental tracking. All histories must be compared for trust (we know Galileo was real).
Chemtrails are chemtrails (Ed Griffin, Hal Lindsey). Humans, giants, and dinosaurs have all been here 6,016 years and 2 months. Election fraud in the US began in 1776, but the first election fraud was the election of a snake. Coronavirus disease has been around for slightly less than 6,016 years and 2 months; four common coronaviruses cause billions of colds every year. Coronavirus disease vaccine was invented in the 20th century (the 2019 gene therapy is not a vaccine). The envelopes contained incriminating evidence (the council of time travelers has not permitted me to say more).
OTOH, the 1537 Bible of Thomas Matthew contains "flat earthe" at 2 Sam. 11:11 but in the KJV this just means "open fields". The underside of clouds might well be lit up by earthshine. Time zones work fine on an icewall flat earth. Antarctica is protected by government thus a natural subject of conspiracy arising from restrictions of movement, but this will change.
What's behind the curtain keeps changing from day to day so today it agrees with your imagination but it will not be revealed until your imagination has changed to be consistent enough with what is coming. Q is Satoshi Nakamura and Cicada 3301. Big things are afoot. I can sleep knowing the truth about everything.
Ron Paul says, "But I mean real flat, like zero."
Cool! You could start a new post at my forum c/Yahweh, which I use reverently. Some say Iaoue.
Pennies before 1982 are still valuable assets usually worth more in copper than their face value. All nickels are usually worth more in nickel than their face value. Check Coinflation for latest value.
Lead (in tapered cylinder form) is also a precious metal nowadays.
Great username!
It wasn't even the original banana. Someone stole and ate the original banana during the display, and the artist just replaced it and said the particular banana wasn't important to the message of the art.
The actual inscription is not the texts above but here, it contains standard abbreviations for "God Jesus Christ" in the fifth line, which have not been found together this early.
Looks like the draft that they have ready for any famous person so they can post a bio at a moment's confirmed notice. These occasionally get leaked mistakenly.
Here's the fastest summary of my view. The progression of judgments is well depicted. The various lengths of events are hotly debated but that's what allows us not to nitpick about them.
It's all the Anunnaki; except the Anunnaki are just cosplaying God, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Noah, and company.
It's all the T cross; except the T cross is Tammuz, who is Dumuzid, who is Abel, who branded his sheep with crosses.
It's all the hexagram; except there wasn't a hexagram there was a star of Remphan, who is Chiun, who is Nehushtan, who is the serpent in the tree of knowledge.
It's all triumphalist world takeover on behalf of [Judaism, Islam, Whites, Hindus, Communists]; except it is, and only one truth will triumph, and it's Jesus, who was in the Garden.
You see my master conspiracy at work? Welcome fellow spirator!
All your bases are belong to us. We, the good guys, have every right to initial prior claim on everything the enemy has infiltrated.
Everyone knows the rainbow is ours and has been for millennia.
We invented the word "trans-sexual" (C.S. Lewis, 1943), long before the enemy coopted it. We invented erotic literature (Genesis 1-3, Song of Solomon) before it got corrupted.
Our God, the only real God, the Father and Creator who has come in Jesus Christ, also makes himself the original "demiurge", and the original "demon", and the original "lucifer", and even the original "satan" (the adversary against evil). Many more such examples can be listed.
Not that our enemies are in league with God, no; it's that God has so strongly previously conspired with his covenant people (revealing everything to his prophets) that we control and manipulate and join with him in how evil is deployed by the enemy, and yet we have learned how to will that limited evil be done for purely good reasons. "You willed evil, but God willed it [the existence of evil will] for good."
Upshot: Every evil in the world is something we can, while excoriating it, accept as God's perfect plan for perfectly good ends, and we can partner with him in finding out and working through those perfect ends, not only preventing much greater evils but also decreeing the end of whatever form of evil we can terminate fully. Daily neutralization of ever more evils until all enemy ammo is spent.
Recognizing that the God of the Christian Bible is using the opportunities for evil so that he accomplishes great good, without either participating in that evil or leaving it unpunished, is the fulfillment of the fruit of bittersweet intimacy and the greatest conspiracy.
This last point is correct. Scotus says income tax was always an excise aka evitable tax. If the fix is in to replace it with an inevitable tax then true statism is behind it. It's a switch from taxing your activities to taxing you as a chattel (capitation). Beware the trial balloons floated by parodies.
Ron Paul favors the flat tax, "but I mean real flat, like zero".
Of course Jesus is God and I'm a trinitarian. That's why he could die to take away my sins and rise to give me his eternal life. It's the unitarians who insist on many theoretical layers in the text tradition even while they insist there are no theoretical layers in God.
Whatever. In theological debates it's usually recognized that (Moses was right) two accounts containing many agreed logia over 90% verbatim indicate a single source. Since Luke and Paul weren't present like the disciples and Luke didn't say who his other sources were, and since the nature of the agreements with Mark also introduces complications, the whole synoptic problem is how these agreements came about. It's regarded as untenable to believe that the apostles engaged a rote oral memorization program but then selected differently and arranged differently from within that program, and Luke just got in on that. Much better sourcing is to state one copied from and modified another's manuscript. The unique indications of both the copying direction and the historical testimony (which are too boring to try to summarize accurately here) suggest there's something more subtle than just three manuscripts. So the conservative critic looks for the hypothesis that assumes the least about this copying and also explains the language gap.