18 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFI was referring to the people themselves. Doesn't wikipedia at least know that Matthew is Levi, a disciple of Jesus. If not, whoever wrote the article is truly lacking in knowledge.
According to wiki:
Matthew probably originated in a Jewish-Christian community in Roman Syria towards the end of the first century A.D. The anonymous author drew three main sources including the Gospel of Mark.
[According] to the majority view the author [of the Gospel of Mark] is unknown, the author's use of varied sources telling against the traditional ...[text shortened]... en somewhere between 75 AD and 100 AD.
John was finally completed somewhere around 90-100 AD
18 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYou told me to look there. Here's more:
I was referring to the people themselves. Doesn't wikipedia at least know that Matthew is Levi, a disciple of Jesus. If not, whoever wrote the article is truly lacking in knowledge.
"[By] the end of the 2nd century the tradition of Matthew the tax-collector had become widely accepted, and the line "The Gospel According to Matthew" began to be added to manuscripts.For many reasons scholars today believe otherwise—for example, the gospel is based on Mark, and "it seems unlikely that an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry, such as Matthew, would need to rely on others for information about it"—and believe instead that it was written between about 80–90 AD by a highly educated Jew (an "Israelite", in the language of the gospel itself), intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values. The disciple Matthew was probably honoured within the author's circle, as the name Matthew is more prominent in this gospel than any other."
18 Oct 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen I said the writers would not have had information available to them I was
I have made no such claim. Why are you so intent on misreading everything I say? Is what I have said too hard for you to deal with?
referring to the details of Jesus' life
your words nerd-boy, would you liker some condiments while you eat them?
18 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsnotice the term probably, in other words, they have nothing but mere opinions, the
I was referring to the people themselves. Doesn't wikipedia at least know that Matthew is Levi, a disciple of Jesus. If not, whoever wrote the article is truly lacking in knowledge.
currency of FMF and his cohorts, mere unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as truth,
no wonder they are failures.
18 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFnot one shred of substantiating evidence, a heap of of pure speculative and
You told me to look there. Here's more:
"[By] the end of the 2nd century the tradition of Matthew the tax-collector had become widely accepted, and the line "The Gospel According to Matthew" began to be added to manuscripts.For many reasons scholars today believe otherwise—for example, the gospel is based on Mark, and "it seems unlikely that an eyewitness of uthor's circle, as the name Matthew is more prominent in this gospel than any other."
unsubstantiated opinion, conjecture and meaningless opinion.
18 Oct 12
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFopinions? opinions? we don't do opinions, we substantiate our claims with facts! this is
What's your opinion about who the author of "Matthew" probably was?
not the debates forum you know, here we are concerned not with what is socially
fashionable, but with truth.
18 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo who do you personally reckon the author of "Matthew" probably was?
opinions? opinions? we don't do opinions, we substantiate our claims with facts! this is
not the debates forum you, here we are concerned not with that which is socially
fashionable, but with truth.
18 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSubstantiate with facts your claim that Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus then.
opinions? opinions? we don't do opinions, we substantiate our claims with facts! this is
not the debates forum you know, here we are concerned not with what is socially
fashionable, but with truth.
18 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFI am surprised there is such an ignorat person writing that for wikipedia. Oh well, that life today. People want some new idea to believe in.
You told me to look there. Here's more:
"[By] the end of the 2nd century the tradition of Matthew the tax-collector had become widely accepted, and the line "The Gospel According to Matthew" began to be added to manuscripts.For many reasons scholars today believe otherwise—for example, the gospel is based on Mark, and "it seems unlikely that an eyewitness of ...[text shortened]... uthor's circle, as the name Matthew is more prominent in this gospel than any other."
18 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou seem to have the wrong idea about what an opinion is. i will educate you, even though i will be throwing my pearls before a swine.
the scriptural references I have given are abundant, I will not do so again, it took me a
considerable time to look them up and throw these pearls before you swine.
you can quote the entire bible. without being able to substantiate the claims, you have nothing. you quoted scripture that claims jesus was descended from the davidic line. without official papers to back up those claims, you have nothing but an empty claim. we have no proof that jesus was descended from david (or that he even existed!)
Once
again it must be noted that you have no real basis for objecting to Christ not having
fulfilled any or all of these messianic prophecies except some drivelling mumbling and
a failure to comprehend the import of the verses, but that's what we have come to
expect, isn't it.
actually, it's easily discernible to anyone with a functioning brain that the messianic prophecies i pointed out have not been fulfilled. to a retarded brain, it may appear that we have world peace, that all the nations worship biblegod, that the kingdoms of israel and judea were reconstituted 2000 years ago and that there is no more sin in the world (among other things). but a healthy mind can see that these things have not become reality.
1. scriptural references were provided
2 scriptural references were provided
evidence for the claims, please.
3. scriptural references were provided
no it wasn't. you were shown using the same reference that your claim had nothing to do with children being murdered during messiah's arrival.
4. there is clearly a messianic prophecy at Isaiah 7:14, your failure to understand or
comprehend the fact does not negate it, your opinion is meaningless.
ah, here we get into facts vs opinion. it is a fact that isaiah 7;14 is talking about a sign to king ahab. it is an opinion that he is talking about messiah. you have a wrong opinion, i have facts.
5.[31:15] Ramah: a village about five miles north of Jerusalem, where one tradition
locates Rachel’s tomb (1 Sm 10:2). The wife of Jacob/Israel, Rachel is the
matriarchal ancestor of Ephraim, chief among the northern tribes. She personified
Israel as a mother whose grief for her lost children is especially poignant because
she had to wait a long time to bear them. Mt 2:18 applies this verse to Herod’s
slaughter of the innocents.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/jeremiah/31/#30031015-1
your opinion is again meaningless.
matthew is wrong, as are you. you both share an inability to properly read jerimiah in context. but given that you also misread isaiah 7;14, it's not surprising that you have a general lack of ability to comprehend what's written the bible.
a simple reading of the chapter explains that biblegod will restore the lost children of israel. they will return home. jesus didn't manage to do any of that. in fact, it got worse for the children of israel after the alleged time he walked the earth. jeremiah just exposes another one of your messiah's shameful failures.
your baseless opinions have no value, i have actual scripture to back up my claims.
18 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyour plethora of references is worthless when you can't even substantiate the first few which i exposed as failures. i'm not going to waste my time debunking every single one. i only need to debunk one and i went beyond that and debunked several. once it gets through your skull that they are failures, i can go ahead and explain why all the others are also worthless.
Not only do I believe it, its a prerequisite, you fail fatboy! AGAIN, you must be getting
used to it by now. I have provided a plethora of scriptural references demonstrating
the messianic prophecy and the subsequent fulfilment in scripture, I will not do so
again, please frame your ludicrous self certified and meaningless opinions within that
framework, if you please.