Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Honestly? I don't much care. Does it matter if it was written in the year 65 AD by a guy named Matthew? Or by a guy named Bob? It's not like we know either one of them. The content of them demonstrates a first-hand knowledge of the events that happened.
In truth, scholarly consensus is that Matthew was authored between AD 70 and 110, with AD 80 to 90 being the most common dating. This would make it virtually impossible for the author to have been a primary source.
Given that, in what sense would Matthew be in a position to demonstrate first-hand knowledge of the events? He certainly depicts some events -- but does not claim to be an actual witness to those events, nor, IIRC, does he even claim to have interviewed actual witnesses. In fact, he does not explain his methodology or his sources, nor cite his personal qualifications, any previous works, or any other credentials.
You admit yourself that we don't know the author and in that sense it doesn't matter who wrote it. And yet you claim whoever-he-is "demonstrates a first-hand knowledge of the events". I can't see that he does any such thing.
In truth, if we accept the median authorship date of 85 AD and assume a date of roughly AD 33 for the crucifixion / resurrection, that is 52 years, in a far less literate and more credulous age, for the tale to grow in the retelling. In order to determine that the tale is accurate, given its nature, it's particularly important to know who wrote it, what his sources were, and what his standards of evidence are. We're batting zero on all of them.
Finally, Matthew is basically Mark with embellishments and tweaks to emphasize Jesus' divinity, rather than Mark's understanding of Jesus as a mere emissary of god. Some pre-ministry and post-resurrection events are tacked on as well. So Matthew actually appears to suggest a legend that is being elaborated and expanded over the years.
The errors are excused by saying that the writing was "inspired" rather than "dictated."
That is awfully lame, isn't it? What could that mean? That God is all powerful save in his inspirational abilities which are hit and miss? What exactly would the difference be between a book that was inspired by god but then written incorrectly by humans, and a book that was written incorrectly by humans? The same result is produced...a flawed book.
We might also ask why god, when delivering the operating instructions he wants humans to follow in life, opted to use inspiration rather than dictation? Why would god risk error like that? All that creates is a lawyer's paradise on Judgement Day.
I am an atheist who like many and perhaps most atheists, was once a theist. Most ex-theists wanted to remain believers but many technical problems, and problems with religious irrationality became evident which made believing impossible. For the theist to understand what religion is all about he must first understand what religion is beyond the spiritual aspect. That requires an objective perspective that perceives the many logical problems with religious belief. I think a question who is not asked often enough of theists is; Why do you believe? I think the answer would indicate that very few theists either want, or perhaps have the ability to look below the surface of their religious belief to closely examine its foundation.
The errors are excused by saying that the writing was "inspired" rather than "dictated."
That is awfully lame, isn't it? What could that mean? That God is all powerful save in his inspirational abilities which are hit and miss? What exactly would the difference be between a book that was inspired by god but then written incorrectly by humans, and a book that was written incorrectly by humans? The same result is produced...a flawed book.
Not really lame. The difference is that the one inspired by God has truth at its core and just needs to be discerned through the ignorant and distorted eyes of the receiver. The other doesn't.
Quote:
We might also ask why god, when delivering the operating instructions he wants humans to follow in life, opted to use inspiration rather than dictation? Why would god risk error like that? All that creates is a lawyer's paradise on Judgement Day.
You assume it is all under God's control (as do most believers). I do not. I recognize the Omni's are the creation of human vanity and hubris. Trying to demand what God MUST be to qualify as God over us. I see God as we are . . . with some things under our willful control and others just part of what is necessary for us to exist and maintain our life. God is everything that exists and everything that is necessary for Him to exist. We are the part of Him that produces consciousness.
Trying to demand what God MUST be to qualify as God over us.
And rightly so, I would suppose. If one is going to actively worship a god and hand over one's life to this entity, such a God would have to be no less than perfect.
This, of course, is a very telling symptom of why the Gods of Religion are very much Man-made, for the deities of myth and legend are anything but perfect. Many show the same foibles and shortcomings as humans possess - including the God of the Bible who claims to be jealous and wrathful.
It would appear that, despite claims to perfection, the human authors couldn't agree on what a "perfect" God would look like, so they were created to be the divine authority for tribal kings. Israel is no exception, a Man-made God to give legitimacy to Israelite leaders and to justify land-grabs and slaughter. Nothing more, nothing less.
Meanwhile, why would I wish to worship an imperfect being no matter how powerful? Why give it any more than the respect it deserves and just leave it right there. Building a religion, a belief system, a paradigm of worship and undue deference just isn't something I would want to do.
Not really lame. The difference is that the one inspired by God has truth at its core and just needs to be discerned through the ignorant and distorted eyes of the receiver. The other doesn't.
You assume it is all under God's control (as do most believers). I do not. I recognize the Omni's are the creation of human vanity and hubris. Trying to demand what God MUST be to qualify as God over us. I see God as we are . . . with some things under our willful control and others just part of what is necessary for us to exist and maintain our life. God is everything that exists and everything that is necessary for Him to exist. We are the part of Him that produces consciousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
And rightly so, I would suppose. If one is going to actively worship a god and hand over one's life to this entity, such a God would have to be no less than perfect.
This, of course, is a very telling symptom of why the Gods of Religion are very much Man-made, for the deities of myth and legend are anything but perfect. Many show the same foibles and shortcomings as humans possess - including the God of the Bible who claims to be jealous and wrathful.
It would appear that, despite claims to perfection, the human authors couldn't agree on what a "perfect" God would look like, so they were created to be the divine authority for tribal kings. Israel is no exception, a Man-made God to give legitimacy to Israelite leaders and to justify land-grabs and slaughter. Nothing more, nothing less.
Meanwhile, why would I wish to worship an imperfect being no matter how powerful? Why give it any more than the respect it deserves and just leave it right there. Building a religion, a belief system, a paradigm of worship and undue deference just isn't something I would want to do.
You raise legitmate questions, Shirina. The whole concept of worship is antiquated. God never did and does not now require any worship from us. WE require it to attune our consciousness to God's love and love for each other. It is what tames our barbarity and undisciplined animal drives. The more animalistic and undisciplined we are the more we need a fear of God to motivate us. The more evolved our spirituality the more we need a God of love to motivate us. Our ignorant and savage ancestors needed a fear of God. But since Christ . . . we only need a God of love.
Not really lame. The difference is that the one inspired by God has truth at its core and just needs to be discerned through the ignorant and distorted eyes of the receiver. The other doesn't.
Another useless argument in that anyone can advance the claim that he or she is right, and that all disagreement must be the product of some sort of shortcoming on the part of the dissenter. Also your very favorite argument I've noticed.
Spirituality and walking closer to our Higher Powers are what are important....
If we ask we will receive: bountiful wisdom and revelations directly from the
Source of the Spring of Inspiration Itself.
I was just thinking this!!!!
Made some changes, hope ok. I correct spiritual poetry a lot before publishing.
Lol @ the religiosos and atheists, John292 was right...Hey, Death, ya better get in here and turn up the heat and stir the pot again before the soup settles and grows cold...lol...
In truth, scholarly consensus is that Matthew was authored between AD 70 and 110, with AD 80 to 90 being the most common dating. This would make it virtually impossible for the author to have been a primary source.
Funny...but the scholars I've seen said it was before 70 AD. If it had been after, then the burning of the temple would likely have been mentioned-- at least as a side note.
But the phrase "scholarly consensus" can be misused to support just about anything, huh?
Quote:
Given that, in what sense would Matthew be in a position to demonstrate first-hand knowledge of the events? He certainly depicts some events -- but does not claim to be an actual witness to those events, nor, IIRC, does he even claim to have interviewed actual witnesses. In fact, he does not explain his methodology or his sources, nor cite his personal qualifications, any previous works, or any other credentials.
There are some narrative passages that seem to indicate that the writer was present.
Quote:
Finally, Matthew is basically Mark with embellishments and tweaks to emphasize Jesus' divinity, rather than Mark's understanding of Jesus as a mere emissary of god. Some pre-ministry and post-resurrection events are tacked on as well. So Matthew actually appears to suggest a legend that is being elaborated and expanded over the years.
It is a theory that Mark was a shorter version of Matthew--I realize that. I've heard it suggested that the Gospels were written because the apostles were starting to die off and they wanted to have a written account of the stories they had been telling in their sermons. Mark might well have been a written account of Peter's preaching notes.
Keep in mind that each of the 4 Gospels appear to be written to a different group of people. Yes, they emphasize different things...but they certainly don't contradict each other. There is no reason to doubt their authenticity.
So was "Catcher in the Rye"...therefore that was a true story?
And it is presented as an act of fiction. How many men died willingly because they were eyewitness to the events in that book?
Quote:
You moved from absolute to "probably" which was my point all along, you have been asserting things you have no way of knowing are true.
I'm not sure I ever said that Moses "absolutely" wrote Genesis. I have no doubt that it is God-breathed...but I don't know for a fact who wrote it.
Quote:
How do you know this?
That the Odyssey is fiction? Because lack of corroborating evidence? Because it's never been presented as fact?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
