Do you agree with these statements?

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Why wouldn't Matthew have written Matthew (or dictated to someone)...he was a Disciple of Jesus, among the 12???
Why not. But the more likely story s that the Gospel of Matthew was written late in the 1st century by Jewish convert to Christianity living in Antioch. Nothing in the Gospel itself requires that we identify the author with the Disciple Matthew.
And, I said Luke was a 'witness to eyewitnesses.'
Luke was a careful historian within the limits of his time--even secular historians today agree. But "witness to eyewitnesses' cannot be substantiated by the usual standards of historiography.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Why not. But the more likely story s that the Gospel of Matthew was written late in the 1st century by Jewish convert to Christianity living in Antioch. Nothing in the Gospel itself requires that we identify the author with the Disciple Matthew. Luke was a careful historian within the limits of his time--even secular historians today agree. But "witness to eyewitnesses' cannot be substantiated by the usual standards of historiography.
I'll let Luke defend himself Luke 1:1-3.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I'll let Luke defend himself Luke 1:1-3.
He doesn't need to defend himself from me. But you, I think, are not very well informed about assessing the reliability of historical documents.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
He doesn't need to defend himself from me. But you, I think, are not very well informed about assessing the reliability of historical documents.
And this from someone who likely believes every scientific paper he reads.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,489
✟236,302.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
@inquiring mind I am making a determined effort to gain a better understanding of your position and perhaps, along the way, give you better clarity of my mind. I am finding your curt answers are not helping achieve this, but I shall keep trying. I hope you will do the same.

People with differing perceptions are and will remain skeptical of each other's motives.
I am skeptical of my own motives and examine each post to ensure I am not pursuing an agenda, or an imagined affront. I would welcome a demonstration from you that you are not using an argument from incredulity. I hope that is the case. That is why I have offered you the opportunity to eliminate that particular option. Please take advantage of it.

To no end.
Here you dismiss my observation that science questions all speculations, then tests them intensively, amends them (in some cases rejects then outright) and develops them. I do not understand why you say there is no consequent end to these actions. The end is an ever improving understanding of the world. Are you saying this is not the case? That science has not revealed a great deal about the workings of the planet, its life and the universe at large? All by speculating, hypothesising, testing and then continuing the questioning.

They're extinct aren't they?
Yes, all the ammonites, including the ceratites are extinct. So what? I am talking of the evolutionary trends within that genus.

Yep, that's what I said.
But you seem to think this is bad thing, or certainly not a helpful thing. Why?
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
@inquiring mind I am making a determined effort to gain a better understanding of your position and perhaps, along the way, give you better clarity of my mind. I am finding your curt answers are not helping achieve this, but I shall keep trying. I hope you will do the same.
I really don’t know how to answer this without being curt.

I am skeptical of my own motives and examine each post to ensure I am not pursuing an agenda, or an imagined affront. I would welcome a demonstration from you that you are not using an argument from incredulity. I hope that is the case. That is why I have offered you the opportunity to eliminate that particular option. Please take advantage of it.
And after all that, you used the word ‘incredulity’… as per a previous post of mine in regard to it, I’m kind of questioning your sincerity at this point.

Here you dismiss my observation that science questions all speculations, then tests them intensively, amends them (in some cases rejects then outright) and develops them. I do not understand why you say there is no consequent end to these actions.
I said it because you guys have repeatedly claimed it.

The end is an ever improving understanding of the world.
‘End’ and ‘ever-improving’ is close to an oxymoron here.

Are you saying this is not the case? That science has not revealed a great deal about the workings of the planet, its life and the universe at large? All by speculating, hypothesising, testing and then continuing the questioning.
Certainly not, that’s what I’m doing… questioning.

Yes, all the ammonites, including the ceratites are extinct. So what? I am talking of the evolutionary trends within that genus.
Are those trends free of any speculation?

But you seem to think this is bad thing, or certainly not a helpful thing. Why?
Again, certainly not, that’s what I’m doing… questioning.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
And this from someone who likely believes every scientific paper he reads.
What a snotty think to say. Why? because I don't agree with your fantasies about the origins of the biblical texts? No, when reading history or science I read critically. In the case of scientific papers, they must be written in such a way as that the assertions made can be verified by independent researchers. Scientific papers are also written about efforts at such verification and can be read critically in the same way.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I mentioned this in another thread... eyewitness accounts have been widely written and accepted in other historical events. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and wrote of His divinity, and Jesus didn't doubt Genesis. At the very least, you would think non-believers and science-types would believe Luke (a Gentile physician & historian) who was a witness to eyewitnesses about Jesus (who as I said didn't doubt Genesis).

The gospels aren't eyewitness accounts. Biblical scholars generally agree they were written decades after the purported events and likely not by any eyewitnesses.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Here's some tissue... lighten up.


Give me some of that tissue back, this was really a snotty thing to say.
Why is it so important for you to believe that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the disciple Matthew himself? In what way does it make the Gospel better to you?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The gospels aren't eyewitness accounts. Biblical scholars generally agree they were written decades after the purported events and likely not by any purported eyewitnesses.
Yes, decades after: Matthew (eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry) about AD 70, less than 40 years after the crucifixion. Mark (not among the 12, but a contemporary of Jesus) AD 60s, 30 years after the crucifixion. Luke (not among the 12, but a contemporary of Jesus) AD 70s-80s, 40-50 years after the crucifixion. John (eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry) in the AD 90s, maybe 60 after the crucifixion. No eyewitnesses or reliable accounts left by these men??? Don’t kid yourself.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
No eyewitnesses or reliable accounts left by these men??? Don’t kid yourself.

I'm just pointing the view shared by the majority of Biblical scholars. Even the authorship of the gospels is unknown.

If you wish to disagree with them, that's your call.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes, decades after: Matthew (eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry) about AD 70, less than 40 years after the crucifixion. Mark (not among the 12, but a contemporary of Jesus) AD 60s, 30 years after the crucifixion. Luke (not among the 12, but a contemporary of Jesus) AD 70s-80s, 40-50 years after the crucifixion. John (eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry) in the AD 90s, maybe 60 after the crucifixion. No eyewitnesses or reliable accounts left by these men??? Don’t kid yourself.

They were all written before that, even.

Luke/Acts was written at about the time the story stops (60s), Mark was written before then (40s or 50s), John was written in the 70s or 80s.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Why not. But the more likely story s that the Gospel of Matthew was written late in the 1st century by Jewish convert to Christianity living in Antioch.

Early Christian writers suggest that the disciple Matthew wrote a proto-gospel (the "Logion", now lost), probably in Aramaic, and very early on.

Textual evidence identifies a core document Q, shared by Luke and by what we now call Matthew.

The most likely hypothesis is that Q was (a translation of) the proto-gospel by the disciple Matthew.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Why is it so important for you to believe that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the disciple Matthew himself? In what way does it make the Gospel better to you?
It’s not that important that he actually penned the final transcript. But, it is important that it is his account (he was a witness). He could have compiled it himself, but if not, these men would’ve had younger contemporaries and followers that would have put it together for them. In fact, that could be true of all the gospels, but being written that early after the crucifixion, they would all be based on eyewitness, or witness to eyewitness accounts, and there would be people around to contradict them. So, it's unlikely they would've been any less than straight-up with the accounts.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
In fact, that could be true of all the gospels, but being written that early after the crucifixion, they would all be based on eyewitness, or witness to eyewitness accounts, and there would be people around to contradict them. So, it's unlikely they would've been any less than straight-up with the accounts.

Given how things like urban legends and misinformation can spread even in modern times with modern technology, I find it odd that people think that stories passed on via oral tradition for decades after-the-fact would somehow be necessarily accurate.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Given how things like urban legends and misinformation can spread even in modern times with modern technology, I find it odd that people think that stories passed on via oral tradition for decades after-the-fact would somehow be necessarily accurate.
Ha, you wouldn’t believe it if someone showed up with a video of it all.
 
Upvote 0