Papyrus found Jesus married

[whag]

That's "badly."

Ever the educator, Lao.

[OingoBoingo]

That's "badly."

You sure about that?

Source: http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/bad-vs-badly/

Bad can be used with copular verbs (that is, verbs which express a state of being, such as to be, to seem, and to feel), but it is still an adjective modifying a noun, not a verb.

Unlike its antonym "well," badly should not be use as an adjective to mean "in a bad way" or "sorry."

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://www.noslangues-ourlanguages.gc.ca/bien-well/fra-eng/grammaire-grammar/mauvais-bad-eng.html

Question:
I used to say I feel bad. Then, I learned that adverbs modify verbs, so now I say I feel badly. Am I correct?

Answer
While it's true that adverbs modify verbs, in this case, you need an adjective. You need to feel bad.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/sdamoff/ifeelbad.htm

I feel bad or I feel badly?
When someone tells you terrible news, and you want to sympathize, should you say, "I feel bad for you" or "I feel badly for you"?

Feel is a linking verb and thus needs to be followed by an adjective (bad), not an adverb (badly). Other linking verbs include seem, appear, grow, and become.

© Copyright Original Source

See also:

http://www.lawprose.org/blog/?p=2233

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/edu...d-versus-badly

[Juvenal]

You sure about that?

Quite sure, thank you. As it seems you wish it spelled out, allow me to oblige: If you feel students should be rewarded with politeness for being obnoxious, you feel badly indeed, a point that seems to have whizzed past you in your frantic search of grammar sites. You may also feel free to test out that feeling the next time you pay your tuition. Let me know how that works out for you.

As ever, Jesse

[OingoBoingo]

I don't care if you're polite or not. The issue isn't with obnoxious students, but with obnoxious teachers.

[JCAtheist]

Eight pages to totally be off topic. Anyone know what the record is?

[whag]

Eight pages to totally be off topic. Anyone know what the record is?

The topic is the messiah's nuptials. Lao and Oingo want to marry each other. It's not that far off topic.

[OingoBoingo]

The topic is the messiah's nuptials. Lao and Oingo want to marry each other. It's not that far off topic.

I hope I'm the groom. I'd look horrible in a dress.

[whag]

I hope I'm the groom. I'd look horrible in a dress.

You can both rock a tux. It's a free country.

[HevenScent]

You can both rock a tux. It's a free country.

Aww man is this one of "Those" kind of churches. I didn't see a sign or anything.

[One Bad Pig]

Aww man is this one of "Those" kind of churches. I didn't see a sign or anything.

Who said anything about a church?

[NormATive]

By "you are basing your faith on writings...", I'm assuming you mean a general "you", correct? Because I haven't stated my faith in this thread.

About your dozens and dozens of Gospels claim, we know that there were many after the very first century, but aside from the Gospel of Thomas which is sometimes dated to the 1st century (but usually its dated to the 2nd or 3rd century), I can't think of any non-canonical "Gospels" before the 2nd century. Can you? Which non-canonical works do you feel should have been included in the canon? I think a good argument can be made for the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and maybe 1 Clement, but there were guidelines for canonization, which accounts for why many 2nd, 3rd, 4th century books were not included in the canon. The canonizers attempted to address the very issue you brought up in post #26. One of the guidelines was that a book considered for canonization had to be early.

I agree with you (as I mentioned in post #50) that the books that were eventually canonized were redacted to some degree. Based on your familiarity with ancient texts, what are some of the more surprising redactions and interpolations you're familiar with? I'm aware of the shorter version of Mark, and the insertion of the Pericope Adulterae in John, but I can't think of too many others that change the meaning of the text significantly. Papias mentioned a Hebrew version of Matthew, maybe that was used as a basis for the present Greek version, or maybe he was talking about another Gospel altogether. Who knows. Can you think of anything else off hand?

In post #66 are you saying that there were many gospels found at Qumran, or is that a misreading? Obviously, there weren't any Christian gospels found in Qumran, since the trove there is usually associated with the Essenes, and not Christians.

Since this is a "Christian Owned Web Site," as I am repeatedly reminded, I am assuming most are of the Christian persuasion.

Gospel is a generic term, not limited to Christian works. There were many gospels in Hebrew and Aramaic. I didn't take the time to memorize them because they were mostly fragments and not whole works. Unfortunately, the Christian "fathers" did a fairly good job of destroying all the existent texts of the time. I remember reading a book written by Irenaeus listing and describing some of the works he had destroyed.

Here's what I think happened, and you can take it for what it's worth: I think that there were some basic, common stories about Jesus that were floating around the first twenty to thirty years after Jesus was executed. I don't think any of them posited that Jesus was G-d. I think they were somewhat messianic (in the Jewish sense of the word).

Then, we have Paul's letters to these house churches spread all over the Mediterranean telling each one something slightly different. Interestingly, not one of Paul's letters mention anything about miracles, virgin births, immaculate conceptions, etc., etc...

Paul is a talented orator and spokesperson for his ideas about a "spiritualized" Jesus - one who came to him in a dream and told him things that he told no one else. A "special knowledge (not in the gnostic sense, though - that comes later).

I think those basic stories were "tweaked" to conform to Paul's ideas - particularly the Gospel attributed to someone named John.

I think after that, the various church leaders work on these gospels more (additions to Luke, for example) and then are sifted and compiled into the Canon we know today (more or less) around the middle of the 4th century CE. For the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the final version was settled at the Council of Trent in the 16th Century CE.

So, it's rather pointless to argue whether this gospel or that gospel was this year or that year. For all intents and purposes, your Christian Testament wasn't complete until the middle of the 4th Century.

Neither you nor I can tell exactly what was written when, nor what all was destroyed. We have only fragments of what your church fathers destroyed.

NORM

[OingoBoingo]

Since this is a "Christian Owned Web Site," as I am repeatedly reminded, I am assuming most are of the Christian persuasion.

Probably a good idea to not assume you're the only non-Christian.

Gospel is a generic term, not limited to Christian works.

Really? I thought Gospel meant "good news", and that the "good news" was generally in reference to Jesus as the messiah. Could you list some non-Christian gospels that are called "gospel" for me?

There were many gospels in Hebrew and Aramaic.

Such as? I know about Papias' gospel of Matthew that was supposedly written in Hebrew. I'm not aware of any other gospels in Hebrew or Aramaic (outside of maybe an Aramaic Q). There's the Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of the Nazarenes, and the Gospel of the Hebrews, but these were likely originally composed in Greek.

I didn't take the time to memorize them because they were mostly fragments and not whole works. Unfortunately, the Christian "fathers" did a fairly good job of destroying all the existent texts of the time. I remember reading a book written by Irenaeus listing and describing some of the works he had destroyed.

Do you think you could find the source for this? I'm sure that orthodox Christians didn't tolerate gnostic or other competing texts in their midst, but it seems unlikely that early church leaders had the ability to destroy a great many works until the 4th century, and even then, I'm sure there'd have been some limitations. Wouldn't it be more likely that competing texts were not preserved by copyists, and were lost to time like other ancient texts?

Here's what I think happened, and you can take it for what it's worth: I think that there were some basic, common stories about Jesus that were floating around the first twenty to thirty years after Jesus was executed. I don't think any of them posited that Jesus was G-d. I think they were somewhat messianic (in the Jewish sense of the word).

Then, we have Paul's letters to these house churches spread all over the Mediterranean telling each one something slightly different. Interestingly, not one of Paul's letters mention anything about miracles, virgin births, immaculate conceptions, etc., etc...

Paul is a talented orator and spokesperson for his ideas about a "spiritualized" Jesus - one who came to him in a dream and told him things that he told no one else. A "special knowledge (not in the gnostic sense, though - that comes later).

I think those basic stories were "tweaked" to conform to Paul's ideas - particularly the Gospel attributed to someone named John.

I think after that, the various church leaders work on these gospels more (additions to Luke, for example) and then are sifted and compiled into the Canon we know today (more or less) around the middle of the 4th century CE. For the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the final version was settled at the Council of Trent in the 16th Century CE.

So, it's rather pointless to argue whether this gospel or that gospel was this year or that year. For all intents and purposes, your Christian Testament wasn't complete until the middle of the 4th Century.

Neither you nor I can tell exactly what was written when, nor what all was destroyed. We have only fragments of what your church fathers destroyed.

NORM

They are not "my" church fathers. I'd prefer you not tell me what I believe, thank you very much.

So despite the existence of a number of fragments, and extensive quotes from early church leaders, you believe that the New Testament did not exist, for all intents and purposes, until the Codex Sinaiticus? That's a very interesting theory. I'm not sure how many (if any) scholars in the field of New Testament studies would agree with that theory, but definitely interesting.

[OingoBoingo]

Oh, before I forget, Normative. Why didn't you answer any of my questions from post #69 in your reply?

You didn't list the names of any non-canonical "gospels" before the 2nd century. Is that because you don't know of any or just because you forgot them all?

Unless I misread you, you claimed that there were gospels found at Qumran, but didn't list the names of those. Did you claim that there were gospels at Qumran because you believe that the word "gospel" is a generic term, and can be applied to any ancient holy text?

You also didn't name any non-canonical books that you feel should have been included in the canon.

And finally, you haven't mentioned any major redactions or interpolations that you feel changed the meaning of the received text in a significant way.

[One Bad Pig]

And finally, you haven't mentioned any major redactions or interpolations that you feel changed the meaning of the received text in a significant way.

Norm doesn't care. They weren't written recently, so they don't apply to this time anyway.

[NormATive]

You didn't list the names of any non-canonical "gospels" before the 2nd century. Is that because you don't know of any or just because you forgot them all?

These were just some of the more interesting ones:

Rule of the War of the Children of Light Against the Children of Darkness (1QM 1QWar Scroll), Son of God' Text, and The Manual of Discipline (1QS, 1Q28), Book of Jubilees (1Q17), Book of Noah (1Q19-1QNoah), Aramaic Testament of Levi from the Cairo Genizah (1QTLevi ar), and this one is probably the most interesting: Book of Giants (1Q24-1QEnGiants arb) - there is a large section of it found in the Book of Enoch (rejected from the Jewish canon).

Unless I misread you, you claimed that there were gospels found at Qumran, but didn't list the names of those. Did you claim that there were gospels at Qumran because you believe that the word "gospel" is a generic term, and can be applied to any ancient holy text?

It wasn't me who called them gospels - one of the instructors kept referring to the smaller letters as gospels. I truly don't recall the names of them, other than The Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Judas (those are the more well known). There were dozens and dozens of them.

You also didn't name any non-canonical books that you feel should have been included in the canon.

I really don't care about "canons." It's not my role to decide what books are holy or not. If you think War and Peace is holy, then; so be it.

And finally, you haven't mentioned any major redactions or interpolations that you feel changed the meaning of the received text in a significant way.

This phrase added to I John that added the doctrine of the trinity, for one:

There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. I John 5:7

The famously quoted phrase from Jesus in John 8:

Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her. - John 8:7

In fact, the entire story is missing from the earliest manuscripts:

"The most ancient authorities lack 7.53—8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful. Scholars generally agree that this story was not originally part of the Gospel of John." (My emphasis added) - p 1830 Harper Collins Study Bible

Shall I go on? There are numerous other such examples.

NORM