Why wasn't Amnon cursed for raping his sister Tamar in accordance with Deuteronomy 27:22?

In my view, Matthew's take on Christianity is that it was the true successor to historic Judaism following the destruction of the Temple. To Matthew, Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. This meant two things: that followers of Jesus were obligated to obey Jewish Law; and that Jesus was King Messiah, destined to rule over a liberated Israel. Matthew’s rivals for ‘hearts and minds’ were Pauline Christianity, which was opposed to the Law, and rabbinic Judaism, which denied that the Messiah had come.

Luke sided with Pauline Christianity and also saw in Matthew’s stressing the Kingly nature of Jesus an unhealthy reminder of the disastrous Jewish Revolt. Luke’s Gospel opposed these themes in Matthew at virtually every opportunity.

Luke’s genealogy was about as opposite to Matthew’s as could be and made Jesus a universal figure, de-emphasizing the exclusively Jewish and kingly aspects.

Luke shifts attention away from Joseph through whom Jesus gets the essential Davidic lineage and toward Mary, who he makes into a real human being instead of the cardboard prop she is in Matthew.

Luke throws out the story of the Magi paying homage to a king and has the newborn Jesus visited by humble shepherds instead.

Luke begins his story saying that it took place in the time of Herod and never mentions Herod again. Instead he ties the birth of Jesus to a tax census that took place long after Herod was dead. That taxation led to a revolt and the formation of the Zealots, who played a major role in instigating the Jewish Revolt of 66-73 CE. But while the violent Zealots were being born, the birth of Jesus was being accompanied by angels singing of peace.

Matthew has Jesus be the new Moses, escaping death at the hands of Herod/Pharaoh who killed all those children, then coming out of Egypt and delivering the Law in the Sermon on the Mount. Luke omits the ‘Slaughter of the Innocents’ and the sojourn to Egypt and turns the Sermon on the Mount into the very different Sermon on the Plain.

Matthew has Joseph and Mary start off in Bethlehem – messianic birthplace or so thought Matthew – and end up in Nazareth, where Mark had already placed him. Luke has them start in Nazareth and return to Nazareth. The census was an excuse to turn Matthew upside down.

Matthew has Jesus spend much time in Galilee and surrounding regions. But Galilee is a hotbed of revolution. And so Luke has Jesus focus on traveling to Jerusalem early on. Matthew’s resurrection story has Jesus and the disciples go back to Galilee. Luke has them all stay in Jerusalem.

There is more, but this post is already big enough.

Diotrophes

I suppose Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus all written in old style uncial Greek, not the miniscule Greek that would be used later on, and all dated to the 4th and 5th centuries were forgeries deliberately written with minor differences of content as part of an elaborate prank, right? And the forgers were so good that they made the OT quotes as they appeared in the pre-Christian Greek Septuagint and even arranged for word play in the Greek that does not appear in the Latin. And then there are the numerous 4th century letters of Jerome describing how he translated the NT into Latin from Greek sources.

The 66 books in the Protestant bible as opposed to the 73 books of the Roman Catholic bible resulted from the omission of 7 of the books that appear in the Septuagint but not in the Jewish Bible as canonized in the 2nd century CE. The reason Luther gave for separating them and for later Protestants to omit them entirely was that they were left out of the Jewish scriptures. This strikes me as strange reasoning since NONE of the NT books are recognized by the Jews. Of course it was more complicated than that, including such issues as some of the other 7 books could be used to support the Catholic idea of Purgatory and all that selling indulgences business.

Diotrephes, or Nourished by Zeus if you prefer

Dio: You may want to take some time to learn about your favorite ethnocentric Middle Eastern religious fairy tale. Right now you are embarrassing yourself with your inaccuracies
***

Insults are the hallmark of the conspiracy theorist who needs to have emotional backing for his arguments, since facts are insufficient.

Dio: The Jerome Bible? It doesn't exist. Just like "Jerome" didn't exist.
***

A lot of people seem to think otherwise, even to the extent of publishing his letters.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Jerome
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=NQUNAAAAIAAJ

Do you have proof otherwise? Or an explanation of just why such an incredible amount of forgery could take place?

Dio: Codex Sinaiticus? It is a hoax. The con man who "found" it admitted that he was pulling a con. Besides that, it is written using the Modern Greek alphabet. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Sinaiticus_text.jpg
***

Tischendorf did not forge the Codex Sinaiticus, nor did he or anyone else ever say such a thing in the era when it was found. The truth is that he had great difficulty getting it away from the monastery that had it. Here is the real story.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions...

The picture of Codex Sinaiticus you linked is very plainly in uncial Greek as would have been the practice in the 4th and 5th centuries. This is very obvious in that it is all upper case and lacks accent marks and especially by the use of scriptio continua, no spaces between words.

Modern Greek, or a close approximation of It, can be found in the Stephanus Greek New Testament of 1550.
https://hejlchristianantiquitarianarchive.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/st...

Dio: Codex Vaticanus? It is also a hoax, written using the modern Greek alphabet. https://www.facsimilefinder.com/facsimiles/codex-vaticanus-b-facsimile#&...

Codex Alexandrinus? It is also a hoax, written in the modern Greek alphabet.
http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com/legacy_blog/12_17_2012_codex-alex...
***

Again, both are in ancient uncial form as can be plainly seen in your links, not modern Greek form. You really do not know anything about ancient texts, do you?

Dio: Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus? If you can read this trash you have excellent eyesight.
https://alchetron.com/Codex-Ephraemi-Rescriptus
***

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus is difficult to read because it is a palimpsest, that is, the pages were washed to remove earlier writings and written over. It is the earlier writings that are of interest. It has been deciphered enough to determine what portions of which books of the bible are represented and what textual differences there are from other versions. If this were a forgery, why bother (a) writing in uncial, (b) washing it to remove most of the ink and (c) writing over it?

Here is what Ephraemi looks like.
http://www.katapi.org.uk/images/MSS/CE-f177v-Prov1-2-Rot-600w.jpg

Exactly how was this forged? And why?

Dio: One thing all of the fakes have in common is that they are poor quality images that prevent or hamper a good examination. You will never find a good, clear image of any of the fakes.
***

These ancient texts have been examined in fine detail. This is not easy because of their extreme age. But it has been done. For example, you can compare the codex pages and the transcriptions of Codex Sinaiticus here.
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=33&lid=en&side=r&...
Use the slider tool to zoom in on the manuscript and the navigation arrows to move around.

Dio: Luther did not delete any books from his Bible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible
***

I never said Luther deleted any books. I said he separated them. He put seven of the Old Testament books in a separate section at the end of the Old Testament that he labeled "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read."

In addition, Luther moved four books of the New Testament (Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation) to the end of the New Testament, labeling them Antilegomena (‘disputed’) and argues against their genuine canonicity. However, he did not label them as a separate section, and their canonicity does not appear to have been questioned subsequently. However, we can see from Luther’s comments in the link below that his quarrel with them was mostly theological. For example, in the case of James, Luther objects to the emphasis on works, contrary to his Sola Fide principle.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

Dio: There are several apparently fake sites claiming that the Vatican deleted 14 books in 1684. I call bullshit on that.
***

I concur.

Dio: The Protestants, led by 2 English nutters = Westcott & Hort = got a bug up their butts and deleted the Apocrypha when they wrote a new Bible version in the 1870s. It was officially deleted in 1885 so Protestants think that it was never in the Bible but added to the Catholic Bible. So the Protestant Bible versions with 66 books has only existed for 133 years.
http://rockingodshouse.com/why-were-14-books-apocrypha-removed-from-the-...

"Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination."
https://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html
***

The reference to 14 books in the first link about and to 80 books in the second link clearly shows that the respective authors are actually ignorant of the subject matter. The correct numbers are 7 and 73 for the Roman Catholic bible that Luther would have used and for the Protestant bibles that contained the Apocrypha. The 14 and 80 numbers apply only to the Orthodox church. The extra 7 books never appeared in any Protestant bible regardless of date. Anyone who more than skimmed the surface of the subject would know that. These authors did not.

The only reference to 14 apocryphal books is in the 39 Articles of Religion issued by the Anglican Church in 1563, and also used by Calvinists. But again, the full 14 books were not identified by Luther as the Apocrypha or ever appeared in any Protestant bible, or in the Roman Catholic bible for that matter. Only the usual 7 were. The 39 Articles, composed after fanatically Catholic and vicious persecutor of non-Catholics Mary I died, was a clear statement that anything and everything of ANY flavor of Catholicism was not welcome in England.
http://gavvie.tripod.com/39articles/art1.html

Prior to the outright removal of the Apocrypha from Protestant bibles, there was ongoing activity to remove it from consideration.

The Church of England in the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith stated that the Apocrypha has no authority.

Chapter 1
III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.
https://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

In addition, there appears to have been some ‘guerilla’ activity going on to get rid of the Apocrypha.

“There is some evidence that the first decision to omit apocryphal books entirely from the Bible was made by Protestant laity rather than clergy. Bibles dating from shortly after the Reformation have been found whose tables of contents included the entire Roman Catholic canon, but which did not actually contain the disputed books, leading some historians to think that the workers at the printing presses took it upon themselves to omit them. However, Anglican and Lutheran Bibles usually still contained these books until the 20th century, while Calvinist Bibles did not.”
http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Biblical_canon#Luther

The original Geneva Bible of 1599 had the Apocrypha separated just as Luther did. An interesting thing about this bible was that it had numerous cross references to other parts of the bible, including the Apocrypha. But subsequent printings had fewer and fewer references to the Apocrypha until they vanished altogether.
http://www.handsonapologetics.com/Geneva_Bible.htm

Luther does not appear to have been interested in deciding what should be canon based on historical or critical factors. If he had he would surely have put 2 Peter into that group. The legitimate canonicity of that book was questioned by even Catholic sources as late as the 16th century. But Luther was interested in theology and the books he labeled as apocryphal contained theology contrary to his own views.

Here is a nice analysis of that.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm

Dio: The bottom line is that the Bible as a comprehensive book did not exist before a committee of story tellers,writers, and artists in England in the late 7th Century crafted three master copies in Latin = the Codex Amiatinus = in an attempt to counter Uthman's Koran. Con men have been pushing the lie about earlier Bibles but they are all fakes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus
***

Your link says that the Codex Amiatinus was a copy of Jerome’s Vulgate. Nowhere in the link does it say anything about it being the first ever bible or a counter to the Quran. In fact, you have provided no evidence in support of your thesis and dismiss the mass of evidence against your thesis as the work of con men. We may note here that there are portions of the bible found in manuscripts dating to the 2nd century, quotes from the bible and lists of proposed canon going back to that era as well. I suppose those are all forgeries as well, even to the extent of being paleographically correct for the era – right kind of material, right lettering style and so forth. Amazing, the extent of the conspiracy…

Let’s face it, you are wrong about this.

In fact, with the exception of the Vatican BS with which I concur, you have been wrong about everything in your post.