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

[Fiona]

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

I do not wish to do what you do, so let me ask you to spell out why this would be in any way relevant? Do explain your whole thought process because I do not wish to attribute to you views you do not hold

 

[Lothian]

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

When we are talking about evidence does it really matter?

Talking of evidence you claimed to have evidence that "Matthew was a tax collector." "the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel Matthew", and he "lived in Jerusalem" but have not provided any.

I presume you were lying but you can very easily prove me wrong.

 

[DOC]

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.

So if it is still his conclusion it must not have mattered that much to him since he converted from atheism to Christianity.

 

[joobz]

So if it is still his conclusion it must not have mattered that much to him since he converted from atheism to Christianity.

I don't know. I haven't spoken with him about it.

What I do know is that his website supports the view that Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew. He isn't alone in that most scholars seem to share that same view.

 

[DOC]

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

So that's all you have to do on Randi now is to say you got a quote from Wiki and not put an article title or link?

 

[Fireshadow]

I see, DOC, that you were quick to jump on Lothian for quoting the incorrect references, but have completely failed to acknowledge that he has since corrected himself. I guess it's just one more point that hurts your credibility. And don't bother responding to my post, nothing useful will come of it. I just want this point to be out there for all to see.

 

[Fiona]

So that's all you have to do on Randi now is to say you got a quote from Wiki and not put an article title or link?

Don't be bloody ridiculous: if you link to wiki the references are all there. You found them, and so would anyone who was interested. As to "all you have to do on Randi now..." that is just more of you dishonest attribution and it is weariesome in the extreme. You have been answered. Now will you do people the courtesty of responding to the substantive points? You are extremely rude, DOC. Courtesy in debate is not a matter of please and thank you: it is much wider than that. You break the civility rule every time you do this: that the MA is not able to deal with this does not make it polite

 

[DOC]

I don't know. I haven't spoken with him about it.

What I do know is that his website supports the view that Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew. He isn't alone in that most scholars seem to share that same view.

Most could mean 51% to 49%, and here is what else Wiki's article "The Gospel of Matthew" says:

"While in the minority, some prominent scholars believe that the apostle Matthew indirectly influenced the gospel.[23] Some conservative scholars such as Craig Blomberg, F. F. Bruce and Gregory Boyd believe that the apostle Matthew did write his gospel, and they note that, as a former tax collector, Matthew would not have been an ideal person to whom to falsely ascribe a gospel.[15][24][25"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

 

[Lothian]

So if it is still his conclusion it must not have mattered that much to him since he converted from atheism to Christianity.

I don't think the authorship of Matthew bothers many Christians. I doubt this affected his conversion or deconversion back to Atheism.

 

[Fiona]

Most could mean 51% to 49%, and here is what else Wiki's article "The Gospel of Matthew" says:

"While in the minority, some prominent scholars believe that the apostle Matthew indirectly influenced the gospel.[23] Some conservative scholars such as Craig Blomberg, F. F. Bruce and Gregory Boyd believe that the apostle Matthew did write his gospel, and they note that, as a former tax collector, Matthew would not have been an ideal person to whom to falsely ascribe a gospel.[15][24][25"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Right so you agree that most scholars do not think Matthew wrote the gospel which bears his name. Good. Now what?

 

[Lothian]

Most could mean 51% to 49%, and here is what else Wiki's article "The Gospel of Matthew" says:

"While in the minority, some prominent scholars believe that the apostle Matthew indirectly influenced the gospel.[23] Some conservative scholars such as Craig Blomberg, F. F. Bruce and Gregory Boyd believe that the apostle Matthew did write his gospel, and they note that, as a former tax collector, Matthew would not have been an ideal person to whom to falsely ascribe a gospel.[15][24][25"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

This is not about what scholars believe, it is about your claim "There is historical evidence that the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel Matthew".

The fact that you keep ignoring requests to give us that evidence tells me you don't have any.

Does

Proverbs 12:22
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.​

apply to typing fingers?

 

[DOC]

I don't think the authorship of Matthew bothers many Christians. I doubt this affected his conversion or deconversion back to Atheism.

Your link is from 13 years ago,

Whereas this link that says he is a Christian is from 3 years ago

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

 

[joobz]

Most could mean 51% to 49%, and here is what else Wiki's article "The Gospel of Matthew" says:

"While in the minority, some prominent scholars believe that the apostle Matthew indirectly influenced the gospel.[23] Some conservative scholars such as Craig Blomberg, F. F. Bruce and Gregory Boyd believe that the apostle Matthew did write his gospel, and they note that, as a former tax collector, Matthew would not have been an ideal person to whom to falsely ascribe a gospel.[15][24][25"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

most is most. And the arguments supporting that conclusion are rather convincing.
And this whole "Tax collector" thing is simply absurd. The whole point of the 12 apostles were that they were common folk of a variety of professions. It actually is a very logical literary construct to select an "author" who would be in a profession that is at once disliked/distrusted by the common folk, yet requires some degree of respect/trustworthiness to obtain the position.

 

[Lothian]

Your link is from 13 years ago,

Whereas this link that says he is a Christian is from 3 years ago

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

And this link is from 2 years ago. He is a right little yo-yo. But this thread is not about Peter Kirby it is about evidence

You claimed to have evidence that "Matthew was a tax collector." "the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel Matthew", and he "lived in Jerusalem" but have not provided any

Were you lying?

 

[DOC]

When we are talking about evidence does it really matter?

Talking of evidence you claimed to have evidence that "Matthew was a tax collector." "the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel Matthew", and he "lived in Jerusalem" but have not provided any.

I presume you were lying but you can very easily prove me wrong.

No, I wasn't lying I posted it over 400 pages ago in post 331:

Well here is some of the evidence that the eyewitness Matthew was the likely author of the Gospel of Matthew.

From the site "Gospel of Matthew"

1.2.2. There are other early sources that also claim that Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic.

A. Irenaeus (130-200) (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2): "Now Matthew brought forth among the Hebrews a written gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church." By “Hebrews” Irenaeus probably meant Palestinian Jews. The language that Jews in Palestine would have spoken was Aramaic, although many Jews had a literary knowledge of Hebrew.

B. Origen (185-254) (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4) asserts, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language."

C. There is a tradition cited by Eusebius, alleged to have originated with a man named Pantaenos (died c. 190), who was associated with the church in Alexandria, that there once existed a Gospel of Matthew written “in Hebrew letters” (H.E. 5.10.1-4): “One of these was Pantaenos, and it is said that he went to the Indians, and the tradition is that he found there among some of those there who had known Christ the Gospel of Matthew had preceded his coming; for Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and had left the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters, which was preserved until the time mentioned” (see H.E. 3.24.5-6). According to Jerome, Pantaenos brought back a copy of this Hebrew version of Matthew to Alexandria (De vir. ill. 36).

D. Eusebius reports the view current in his time is that Matthew's gospel was based on his preaching to Palestinian Jews, whose first language no doubt would have been Aramaic. Naturally, Matthew's gospel would have been written in Aramaic. He writes, "For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence" (H.E. 3.24.6).

E. Jerome (342-420) more than once asserts that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. He even claims that the original Hebrew gospel can be found in the library at Caesarea (De vir. ill. 3; see Ad Damas. 20; Ad Hedib. 4). Jerome sometimes refers to this Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in order to clarify the meaning of the Greek text.

F. In describing the Jewish Christian sect known as the Nazarenes, Epiphanius (315-403) writes, "They have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters" (Panarion 29.9.4). It seems that he is referring to the same Hebrew version of Matthew known to Jerome.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/Matt.htm ...

 

[Lothian]

Well here is some of the evidence that the eyewitness Matthew was the likely author of the Gospel of Matthew.

From the site "Gospel of Matthew"

1.2.2. There are other early sources that also claim that Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic.

A. Irenaeus (130-200) (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2): "Now Matthew brought forth among the Hebrews a written gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church." By “Hebrews” Irenaeus probably meant Palestinian Jews. The language that Jews in Palestine would have spoken was Aramaic, although many Jews had a literary knowledge of Hebrew.

B. Origen (185-254) (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4) asserts, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language."

C. There is a tradition cited by Eusebius, alleged to have originated with a man named Pantaenos (died c. 190), who was associated with the church in Alexandria, that there once existed a Gospel of Matthew written “in Hebrew letters” (H.E. 5.10.1-4): “One of these was Pantaenos, and it is said that he went to the Indians, and the tradition is that he found there among some of those there who had known Christ the Gospel of Matthew had preceded his coming; for Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and had left the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters, which was preserved until the time mentioned” (see H.E. 3.24.5-6). According to Jerome, Pantaenos brought back a copy of this Hebrew version of Matthew to Alexandria (De vir. ill. 36).

D. Eusebius reports the view current in his time is that Matthew's gospel was based on his preaching to Palestinian Jews, whose first language no doubt would have been Aramaic. Naturally, Matthew's gospel would have been written in Aramaic. He writes, "For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence" (H.E. 3.24.6).

E. Jerome (342-420) more than once asserts that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. He even claims that the original Hebrew gospel can be found in the library at Caesarea (De vir. ill. 3; see Ad Damas. 20; Ad Hedib. 4). Jerome sometimes refers to this Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in order to clarify the meaning of the Greek text.

F. In describing the Jewish Christian sect known as the Nazarenes, Epiphanius (315-403) writes, "They have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters" (Panarion 29.9.4). It seems that he is referring to the same Hebrew version of Matthew known to Jerome.

The highlighted words make clear that this is rumour not evidence. I understand there is no Aramaic version of Matthew.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

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

Why didn't you cite chapter and verse to demonstrate that the NT said Matthew was a Tax Collector?

GB

 

[cj.23]

Just passing by, I posted earlier in the thread on Nazareth, but the earliest sources i know of on the composition of Matthew

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome , and laying the foundations of the Church . After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia..

3. Pantænus was one of these, and is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism.

Note the word translated publican here is the infamous "tax collector" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publican for explanation). I am pushed for time and you may well have covered these references, and I'm not even sure what DOC is arguing as I have not read the last five or six pages of the thread yet, so if irrelevant my apologies. I can provide full links to the sources of texts above if anyone interested (but Google will find them I'm sure)

Matthew's gospel was (probably) influential on the community who produced the Didache around 100, so influential early but as I recall they were using Greek? My understanding was textual critics though the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Greek; I have not looked at the issue for years. As I recall there is a debate about whether the early Hebrew gospel of Matthew referred to in these texts could have been The Gospel According to the Hebrews. Ah here you go, good wiki article here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_the_Hebrews

Anyway good to see the most epic thread ever still going strong!

EDIT: WOW! In the time it took me to write this loads more posted, and all this covered I think! Sorry

cj x

 

[DOC]

The highlighted words make clear that this is rumour not evidence...

Actually Oral tradition evidence in that era of no paper and little literacy is not rumor, it was actually quite an important way of transferring historical information.

http://www.aish.com/jl/48943186.html

 

[joobz]

Actually Oral tradition evidence in that era of no paper and little literacy is not rumor, it was actually quite an important way of transferring historical information.

The greek myths were also oral traditions.