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

[kmortis]

To break it down for DOC: cj's religious beliefs are states in his signature. You know what a signature is, don't you....that thing that Caesar is lacking...

Aww...now you went and told him. Now what is he going to spend the next ten days on? Research?

 

[Simon39759]

.
Careful there, Jesus has actually been used as character in several Marvel books.

Just sayin'
.

Really?
I actually can't remember... Not that Gods are any kind a rarity in the MU.

 

[Craig4]

What did his spandex super suit look like?

 

[bikerdruid]

What did his spandex super suit look like?

one could tell that he was circumcised....
(his godhead was visible.)

 

[TSR]

one could tell that he was circumcised....
(his godhead was visible.)

.
COFFEE ALERT, d*mmit.

you owe me a keyboard.
.

 

[six7s]

I nominated Cactus Wren for the following pithtastic post:

Jesus also said there would come false prophets who would deceive many.

So you're saying your a false prophet?

DOC hasn't deceived anybody.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

This is incorrect. There is historical evidence that Matthew was a tax collector. There is historical evidence that the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel Matthew, and thus obviously lived in Jerusalem during Christ's death. And read any summary of the NT and many should tell you that the theme of Matthew is Christ is the Jewish Messiah unlike say Luke that was written for the gentiles, or John which mostly stressed the deity of Christ.

And where did you find this wealth of "historical" evidence? OY vey! The NT you say?

When are you going to finish that Logic 101 course again? You still haven't learned a thing about circular reasoning in 428 pages and 2 years on this thread.

GB

 

[Craig4]

If you're going to tell us that Matthew was a tax collector you might want to add a citation. No one is looking for MLA standards here but just tell us why you got that little gem. You may have sorted out that no one here is just going to take your word for it.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

If you're going to tell us that Matthew was a tax collector you might want to add a citation. No one is looking for MLA standards here but just tell us why you got that little gem. You may have sorted out that no one here is just going to take your word for it.

Just because DOC couldn't be bothered:

Matthew 9:9-11:
9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.
10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

GB

 

[amb]

Christian or not, he presents claims with supporting evidence. While I do not agree with is ultimate conclusion, I can appreciate his methods. I'd never knock him for his faith.

He would have to give much credence to the theory that the gospel writers were writing the truth because of his faith though. At least to most of it.

 

[DOC]

We know he claims to be a tax collector but in this thread you are supposed to be providing evidence the claims in bible are true. If you have evidence outside the bible that he is a tax collector tell me what it is otherwise I will assume you are lying again.


Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Today, most critical scholarship agrees that Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name,[20][21] and prefer instead to describe the author as an anonymous Jewish Christian, writing towards the end of the 1st century. The vast majority of scholars believe that the Gospel was originally composed in Greek (see Greek primacy) rather than being a translation from an Aramaic Matthew or the Hebrew Gospel.

20 Eusebius, ''Church History'' 3.24.6..
21 F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingston, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, 1989. p 957 & 722


It is not obvious at all that Matty lived in Jerusalem, I am pleased however that you will be proving evidence.

Then again perhaps you will ignore this post. Perhaps I will keep posting it. Perhaps you will admit there is no evidence.

Why didn't you post the link and the article title for the Wiki quote you brought in?

And your footnote (20) author is wrong it is not Eusebius but Peter Kirby who was an atheist but converted to Catholicism.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/04/atheist-peter-kirby-is-now-catholic.html

 

[Fiona]

Why didn't you post the link and the article title for the quote you brought in?

And your footnote (20) author is wrong it is not Eusbius but Peter Kirby who was an atheist but converted to Catholicism.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/04/atheist-peter-kirby-is-now-catholic.html

Why don't you answer the questions instead of generating fog?

 

[Lothian]

Why didn't you post the link and the article title for the quote you brought in?

And your footnote (20) author is wrong it is not Eusbius but Peter Kirby who was an atheist but converted to Catholicism.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/04/atheist-peter-kirby-is-now-catholic.html

I did. It clearly says wikipedia in the Quote.

Why do you question the link rather than address the main point and provide evidence that not provide the evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew, he was a tax collector and he lived near Jerusalem. Were you lying again when you claimed to have evidence?

 

[Lothian]

And your footnote (20) author is wrong it is not Eusebius but Peter Kirby who was an atheist but converted to Catholicism.

Ooops You are right. I copied the footnotes from the page on St Matthew, rather that the Gospel of Matthew page. I must have had them both open.

The correct references are

20 Peter Kirby, Gospel of Matthew Early Christian writings "It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew."
21 "Matthew, Gospel acc. to St." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005.

 

[DOC]

I did. It clearly says wikipedia in the Quote.

Why do you question the link rather than address the main point and provide evidence that not provide the evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew, he was a tax collector and he lived near Jerusalem. Were you lying again when you claimed to have evidence?

So you gave a quote with no article title and no link and incorrectly put a well known Early Church Christian (Eusbius) as your source for a derogatory statement about Christianity?

 

[joobz]

Why didn't you post the link and the article title for the Wiki quote you brought in?

And your footnote (20) author is wrong it is not Eusebius but Peter Kirby who was an atheist but converted to Catholicism.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/04/atheist-peter-kirby-is-now-catholic.html

So you are saying that even christian scholars don't believe that matthew wrote the gospel.

 

[joobz]

Ooops You are right. I copied the footnotes from the page on St Matthew, rather that the Gospel of Matthew page. I must have had them both open.

The correct references are

20 Peter Kirby, Gospel of Matthew Early Christian writings "It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew."
21 "Matthew, Gospel acc. to St." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005.

that you, lothian, for the correction.

 

[DOC]

So you are saying that even christian scholars don't believe that matthew wrote the gospel.

He might have wrote his article when he was an atheist, before became a Christian.

 

[joobz]

He might have wrote his article when he was an atheist, before became a Christian.

Do you have evidence that he has renounced his scholarship?
Considering that his website "early christian writings" is still up and he still sells cds of it, one would assume that he still supports the conclusion.

 

[Lothian]

So you gave a quote with no article title and no link and incorrectly put a well known Early Church Christian (Eusbius) as your source for a derogatory statement about Christianity?

I said where the quote I included was from, Wikipedia. You obviously has no difficulty finding it.

"Today, most critical scholarship agrees that Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name" is in no way a derogatory statement about Christianity.

It does however give doubt to your claim to have evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew. Of course the simplest solution is for you to give us that evidence, along with evidence he was a tax collector and evidence he lived near Jerusalem. Do you have that evidence or were your lying?