19 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMatthew is now widely thought to have not been written before 70 AD. According to the overview at wiki [which is fully referenced] that RJHinds pointed me to, scholars today believe that this gospel "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".
Matthew is thought, on the basis of textual documents, admittedly
given much later, to have written his gospel in 41. C.E, a few years after the
resurrection of Christ which happened around 33/34 C.E
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf i told you i was a drummer who knew Barack Obama, then preceded to drop a 'knowledge bomb' on you about drumming ie. Paradiddles, Swiss Triplets, Stick Control, Ted Reed's Syncopation, etc. That would confirm i was knowledgeable about drumming but not that i knew Barack Obama.
hmmmm
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobIt would mark you as a man who told the truth. I would think to myself, is he really a
If i told you i was a drummer who knew Barack Obama, then preceded to drop a 'knowledge bomb' on you about drumming ie. Paradiddles, Swiss Triplets, Stick Control, Ted Reed's Syncopation, etc. That would confirm i was knowledgeable about drumming but not that i knew Barack Obama.
drummer, why yes, he knows many complex rhythms, has specialist knowledge, yes i
woiuld be inclined to believe what he says in other areas as well.
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFrely upon it, it has 42 percent, almost half not found elsewhere in the other three
Yes.
Why does the gospel of Matthew rely on Mark at all if Matthew's author was an eyewitness, and Mark's author wasn't?
gospels, I hardly think it relies upon it or how will you explain this disparity?
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFwidely thought, speculated that, is thought to be, might be, probably, coulda, shoulda,
Matthew is now widely thought to have not been written before 70 AD. According to the overview at wiki [which is fully referenced] that RJHinds pointed me to, scholars today believe that this gospel "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 o ...[text shortened]... Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values".
woulda, try providing some empirical evidence, these assertions are meaningless in
themselves.
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou don't think the gospel of Matthew used the gospel of Mark as one of its major sources?
rely upon it, it has 42 percent, almost half not found elsewhere in the other three
gospels, I hardly think it relies upon it or how will you explain this disparity?
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe material is fully referenced, as I pointed out.
widely thought, speculated that, is thought to be, might be, probably, coulda, shoulda,
woulda, try providing some empirical evidence, these assertions are meaningless in
themselves.
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou could be talking about your circumstantial stuff about having knowledge of taxes or illness which is much more tenuous and speculative than anything I have said.
widely thought, speculated that, is thought to be, might be, probably, coulda, shoulda, woulda, ...
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieits mentioned in Matthew 27:52-53
stellspalfie, my dear sir, you know that i only deal with what can be established
empirically, that is with substantiating evidence. Saints or those who were canonised is
not to my knowledge a Biblical teaching, its a product of the catholic church, where did
you hear that they walked the street of Jerusalem during the resurrection of Christ? ...[text shortened]... ospel in 41. C.E, a few years after the
resurrection of Christ which happened around 33/34 C.E
do you think the word 'saint' has been wrongly translated, or maybe added retrospectively to substantiate the catholic church?
is there any other mentions of this event in the bible?
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell then if that's the case, i have some magic beans for sale. Would you like to buy some? I can offer you a special end of summer sale price.
It would mark you as a man who told the truth. I would think to myself, is he really a
drummer, why yes, he knows many complex rhythms, has specialist knowledge, yes i
woiuld be inclined to believe what he says in other areas as well.
19 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFThis is not true. All the gospels are believed by Chritian scholars to be written before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans is 70 A.D. because they did not mention that destruction. Surely they would have pointed that out as a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus if they knew it had happened. Those so-called scholars saying the gospels were written after 70 A.D. are obviously atheist idiots.
What circumstantial evidence you yourself would or would not accept is entirely relevant because it is quite clear here that you are accepting weak evidence because it supports the stance you wish to take.
Why would an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry, if that is what Matthew was, rely so heavily on Mark's gospel for information about things that happened, es s gospel was written by someone who knew Jesus or that it was written any earlier than AD 70?