Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[paximperium]

So let's assume this Matthew fella wrote the gospel.
So? Did he ever meet Jesus or claim to have met this Jesus fella?

Asking again DOC.

 

[Waterman]

OK here is evidence Matthew wrote his gospel:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4099592#post4099592

and someone above said it was refuted by more info on the same site which didn't make much sense to me. You don't devote a website to argue for something and then try to show it has been disproved.

Doc, you still have not responded to the Greenleaf discussion, nor to my repeated requests for responses. Since you are responding to other posts and ignoring mine I am going to conclude that you can't refute it. If you do bring Greenleaf back into the discussion fully expect that someone will remind you of this discussion.

 

[Akhenaten]

So are you saying the word university (or a similar foreign word) was not derived from uni + versus. And are you saying the word diversity is not related to versus.

 

[Akhenaten]

What is your source for the 150 year figure?

Huh, have you been reading this thread, do you want me to bring it in for the 3rd time?

 

[Akhenaten]

OK here is evidence Matthew wrote his gospel:

<link to drivel>

and someone above said it was refuted by more info on the same site which didn't make much sense to me.

And someone else said it wasn't, only they said it louder, so you lose. Makes perfect sense to me.

You don't devote a website to argue for something and then try to show it has been disproved.

You don't devote time and effort to creating a mobius strip and then stuff it inside inside a klein bottle.


Oh, wait . . .

 

[Akhenaten]

And it is always possible he wrote both the Aramaic and Greek versions. He was a tax collector who had to deal with a lot of different people who spoke different languages.

my bolding


You have no idea what evidence means, do you, Doc?

I'll give you a hint: It has nothing to do with your speculations.

In other words, you have created yet another no information post.

Why?

 

[Simon39759]

OK here is evidence Matthew wrote his gospel:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4099592#post4099592

and someone above said it was refuted by more info on the same site which didn't make much sense to me. You don't devote a website to argue for something and then try to show it has been disproved.

Well, actually, it is conceivable, that someone would believe something and start a website on the subject and then, in the process of gathering information for this site, realize that is initial position was mistaken and state so.

That this possibility does not 'make much sense to you', that it does not even enter your mind, is actually quite telling.

 

[Elizabeth I]

ETA: Both Lucian and dafydd understood the argument being made. They both were able to understand that University (as in a place of higher learning) is NOT derived from a contraction of the words Unity and Diversity.

As was everyone else, except for one person.

 

[Akhenaten]

As was everyone else, except for one person.

Even Nimrod, my pet fish, understood it.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Even Nimrod, my pet fish, understood it.

So did Ember, my ditzy dog.

 

[Toke]

Are you saying that Scoth Adams is wrong in the Dilbert strip about analysis, where ysis is greek for "pulling from"?

ETA: I don't recall if it involved theology or business forecasts.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Even Nimrod, my pet fish, understood it.

Mauser is pretty slow and he understood it.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Are you saying that Scoth Adams is wrong in the Dilbert strip about analysis, where ysis is greek for "pulling from"?

ETA: I don't recall if it involved theology or business forecasts.

Well, no, Scott Adams is never wrong.

Except when he did his little "The Secret" number. That was weird.

 

[lionking]

Is this now the forum's biggest thread.

Sorry about being OT, but I am curious.

 

[Toke]

Except when he did his little "The Secret" number. That was weird.

I found his blog, it does not work, except when it does????
Nobody is perfect.

 

[amb]

Is this now the forum's biggest thread.

Sorry about being OT, but I am curious.

Not too sure if the UFO/alien thread is around the same size. Rramjet, [appropriate name] is like DOC bucking the odds almost by themselves.

 

[Lothian]

Here is the conclusion of the site:

From the article "the gospel of Matthew":

The authorship of the Gospel of Matthew is something of a puzzle. It is unlikely that the canonical Matthew represents a straightforward translation of an original Aramaic or Hebrew version composed by the apostle Matthew, since the author of the Gospel of Matthew probably used the Gospel of Mark as a source. Nevertheless, it is probably safe to conclude that the apostle Matthew wrote something in Aramaic or Hebrew that has some connection to the canonical Gospel of Matthew. But what exactly that text was and its connection to the canonical Matthew is difficult to determine.

And it is always possible he wrote both the Aramaic and Greek versions. He was a tax collector who had to deal with a lot of different people who spoke different languages.

No, the author of that article said he wrote something in in Aramaic or Hebrew but it is not known what he wrote. There is therefore no way to tell if the version now credited to him tells the same tale as that original.

The author also says he probably used Mark as a source. Why would someone who knew Jesus need to use Mark as a source? The author is not the apostle Matthew.

This article clearly does not provide evidence that Matthew the apostle wrote the story attributed to him. You have been told this before. Repeating this claim when it is debunked by the article itself is not merely ignorance it is lying.

 

[Her Dark Star]

Thank you to those who provided an update, particularly Ankhenaten. Thanks for making me laugh too

As for the Gospel of, well anyone. Difficult to see how any of it can be of evidential quality considering that the document has been translated, edited, amended, re-translated etc for a rather long time. And with no version control. Even if the authorship wasn't in doubt and could be dated back to a time and place where someone might actually have witnessed some of these events there is little probability of the text, let alone any interpreted meaning, resembling what was originally written.

Many of the gospels contain conflicts between each other, or even in themselves. Many of these conflicts would certainly appear similar to the kind of errors you get in 'Chinese Whispers'. The slight changes in word use, tone and memory as a message is passed along eventually resulting in a change of the meaning of the message.
Matthew is frequently telling the same story as Mark. But with differences. Is Matthew actually retelling the story that he heard? Matthew & Luke tell a story about John the Baptist that conflicts with what John says. Were they disagreeing with each other? Making a mistake when repeating a story? Differences between witnesses are certainly to be expected but what we know of the history of these texts means even finding the origins of the story is difficult, let alone expecting someone to believe that the text is sufficiently consistent and self verifying to be evidence of it's own truth?

Any given statement in the bible might be true. But some of it is clearly not. The articles in the NT, at best, tell us a little about human psychology, but in themselves they tell us nothing about the truth.

 

[Akhenaten]

Is this now the forum's biggest thread.

Sorry about being OT, but I am curious.

I doubt that it's a problem. mate. We're getting abso-bloody-lutely nowhere with the NT.

 

[amb]

Just checked the UFO/alien thread. it's 164 pages compared to this 272.