Pulpit Fiction: Debunking Popular Bible Misconceptions - Michael P. Barber
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2024
- Patreon: / intellectualcatholicism
Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Facebook: / intellectualcatholicism
Suan Sonna is a Baptist convert to Catholicism who is dedicated to curating the best Catholic intellectual content on philosophy, politics, and theology. He is also passionate about engaging people outside of the Catholic tradition on issues relevant to the Church. - บันเทิง
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 72 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องศึก vs โจอาคิม"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hT1EOSsRPac/mqdefault.jpg)
Matthew wrote the Gospel by himself, in real time! I saw it with my own eyes on The Chosen!!!
😂 That is soo funny! Great comment! 😅
In my days of learning the faith, Dr. Barber was one I learned SO much from!! I remember him making the connections with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Mass.
Pulpit fiction is a very funny title. Well done!
He is, so far, my favorite Catholic apologetics writer. (New Catholic from OPC denom)
Thank you both! I would add, if I may, that there are as many good arguments for Matthew being the author of canonical Matthew as against, including arguments from both Dr. Brant Pitre and Dr. Scott Hahn. This is with the understanding (of course) if never "proven" either way, it is still inspired and canonical . Tradition is always the safe bet until or otherwise direct evidence proves to the contrary.
"Who's Luke???" 😁
Great stuff! I wanna hear more about the authorship of Matthew.
Thanks much for this video.
"The point is that they didn't help him because he was a Samaritan."
WHAT!? Is Michael Barber saying the guy beaten by robbers was a Samaritan? Surely that's not correct? Is the story about a Samaritan helping a Samaritan? Surely the most natural interpretation is that the beaten man is a Jew, and so it is especially notable when the one who stops to help is a Samaritan who people would expect to be hostile to Jews?
I think the point is indeed that the priest and the Levite are lacking in compassion. Obviously Jesus is not saying all Jews are like that, only that some priests and Levites are capable of being like that.
I think he just misspoke there
@@carsonianthegreat4672 I mean, maybe, but then what exactly is his explanation for why the priest and Levite didn’t help the beaten man?
@@jacobheatherington not sure what his position would be. I would hypothesize that Jesus’ point was simply to criticize the hypocrisy of some of the Jewish leaders, just like several other parables do.
It’s been my understanding that Judaizers could be both ethnic Jews AND gentiles who intended to be Christian. It was an early heresy that seemed strongest in Jerusalem.
The Judaizer heretics were those who taught that the ceremonial law was necessary for the salvation of the gentiles. There were Jewish Christian groups (especially in and around Jerusalem) that held to the ceremonial law as a matter of cultural identity and continuity in spiritual practice, but these groups were in communion with the broader Church - Jew and Gentile! - and not the same as the heretics.
The Hebrew Catholics today under the St. James Vicariate, who observe the dietary customs of the Old Testament, for example, are not Judaizing heretics.
In the parable of the good Samaritan, is it the injured man that is the Samaritan? I could have missed it, but I don’t think it says that. Perhaps it’s in the Greek?
Also, I don’t see very much difference between (1) prioritizing ritual purity over love of neighbor and (2) the professor’s characterization as being motivated by dislike of Samaritans over love of neighbor. In either case, the priest and Levite are failing to be a neighbor to the man.
Edited to add that the Ascension Publishing Bible app comment on this parable indicates ritual purity laws as a possible reason for not helping the injured man.
Regular viewer of intellectual Catholicism . Thoughtful insights 🎉
Yeah I think that was a miss
The problem is that if we accept #1, that it leads to a sort of pseudo-marcionism. The ritual purity laws were a source of grace; they were good things! We should not disparage them by saying they are a hinderance to charity, because they were not - and Jesus NEVER said they were!
#2 is the much better choice of the two, because it comports with Jesus’ broader critique of the hypocrisy of some Jewish leaders, without trying to do violence to the continuity of the covenants by juxtaposing the righteousness of the purity laws with charity (in a very anachronistic way, mind you).
@@carsonianthegreat4672maybe that’s right, but my question is whether there’s any evidence that the injured man was a Samaritan?
Edited to add that I think Jesus actually may have had something to say about this, for example in Matthew 12:7 and 15:2.
@@carsonianthegreat4672 they were not a source of grace, that is a heresy. The ritual purity laws were not sacraments, read the catechism
The Gospel According to the Hebrews is quoted as a HERETICAL gospel. I have never seen anyone except fringe scholars suggest it is the original gospel written by Matthew
There are two (and maybe three) distinct texts that are called the Gospel of the Hebrews.
One of these, the one used by the Ebonites, is the heretical one that suggests the Holy Spirit is Christ’s mother.
But the other, the one used by the Nazarenes, is not necessarily heretical (it is lost), and has been suggested by some to be the Matthean original. Other scholars will say that the Nazarene Gospel is an edited descendent of the Matthean original. Others will say the two are unrelated. Others will say all three gospels (Ebionite, Nazarene, and Canonical) are descended from the original.
It should be noted that the Ebionites, at least by the time of Origin, were heretics. The Nazarenes are not necessarily a heretical group. Some scholars have suggested that the Nazarenes were a Jewish Christian group in communion with the wider Proto-Orthodox (ie Catholic) Church.
Love it
All Judaizers were Gentile? Really?
Yall are haters 😭 whyd you delete my comment??
This guy is massivly wrong and liberal
This video is over an hour long, and you made this comment less than 25 minutes after it was posted. Try a little harder.
From the moment he denied the authenticity of "longer" Mark, I concluded he was a liberal. From the moment he denied the authorship of Matthew, I concluded he is a heretic, not just a liberal
Also, if he thinks german protestant heretics are antisemitisc, I don't wanna know what he thinks of the Church Fathers (which he has never read because he is not very smart)
From the moment he denied the authenticity of "longer" Mark, I concluded he was a liberal. From the moment he denied the authorship of Matthew, I concluded he is a haratic, not just a liberal
Also, if he thinks german protestant haratics are antisemitisc, I don't wanna know what he thinks of the Church Fathers (which he hasn't read)
@@getaids7099ah, a bonafide moron.
@@getaids7099He didn't deny the longer ending, just acknowledged that it wasn't part of the original manuscript. What is the reason why it is absent from the earliest manuscripts if this isnt the case?
Since you wanna talk church fathers, many that commented on Mark also omit it.