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.
Exactly. It irritates me to see even the skeptical scholars dating the gospels to the traditional 70-90 CE when we haven't got a single document to support this. It's basically just accepted because over the centuries corrupt churchmen desperate to reinforce proof their religion was relevant repeatedly affixed these dates to the gospels to try to convince pagans their religion legitimately dated to the apostles. But the first scrap we have of ANY gospel is P52 dated by more realistic-minded scholars to 150 CE. Even more incredibly it contains only about 12 Hebrew characters that seem to match John's gospel, but there isn't a single whole sentence. And on this less-than-flimsy "evidence" Christians try to get gospel of John to 90 CE. Totally laughable.
10 Greek words, 13 part words that match the gospel of John. Otherwise yes, the latest dates put it at 150 AD or later.
But in none of the attempted solutions to the synoptic problem do I see a good reason for a first century AD date for John.
Not just that but I think even some Christians here (maybe it was nerfball...or Omega...maybe it was Baptist--nah, it couldn't be Baptistfundie ) admit that Matthew drew from Mark. Now if Matthew was an actual eyewitness to the events why on earth would he have to copy over 90% of Mark when he could just write his own first-hand account?????????? This is what Christians deliberately fail to see because they simply don't want to know pertinent truths about their religion that could undermine their faith and cause their entire world to collapse.
I have never said Matthew drew from Mark. Try to get your facts straight before you accuse. Each gospel writer only wrote what God inspired him to write.
Read 4 biographies of George Washington and you will see much of he same things about him will be included in each one of them and some things will be different.
Be specific, although you can't be, what pertinent truth do we not want to know that will undermine our faith? That isn't the silliest remark made by a secular fundie about Christianity., but it is in the top 10.
Congratulations. That qualified you to be considered for the silly remarks hall of fame. Now all you have to do is give at least one, only one, example that will prove you actually know waht you are taling about
Exactly. It irritates me to see even the skeptical scholars dating the gospels to the traditional 70-90 CE when we haven't got a single document to support this. It's basically just accepted because over the centuries corrupt churchmen desperate to reinforce proof their religion was relevant repeatedly affixed these dates to the gospels to try to convince pagans their religion legitimately dated to the apostles. But the first scrap we have of ANY gospel is P52 dated by more realistic-minded scholars to 150 CE. Even more incredibly it contains only about 12 Hebrew characters that seem to match John's gospel, but there isn't a single whole sentence. And on this less-than-flimsy "evidence" Christians try to get gospel of John to 90 CE. Totally laughable.
When or even by who a gospel was written, is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is if was inspired by God and is inerrant
If you can prove God did not inspire it, and tha is no inerrant, I gladly join you in your anti-Christian crusade.
This is quite easy. While I don't think Matthew drew from Mark (as we now have it) I do think that he drew from a proto -Synoptic source that Mark also used - which is pretty much the same argument. In the case of the Washington analogy, some will write 'differently' as you say and they will be using their own knowledge or drawing from different sources. Others - if they use the same wording - are clearly using the same sources, and that is what we find with Matthew. This is obviously using a common source.
What (to continue with the Washington analogy) would be suspicious is if one source said for instance that Washington led a cavalry charge and captured the British general, and no other source even hints at this. It is just too important to be overlooked by the other sources.
This is what we find in Matthew with Sinking Simon or the tomb guard or the women running into Jesus. When others don't even hint at this or deny it (as Luke does with the women meeting Jesus), you know he is making stuff up or at least drawing on unreliable source material. My money is on making it up.
I do not care what your Bible says. I don't believe your Bible...remember? Your Bible has been proven to be little more than fable, fiction and fraud.
Quote:
Post where they were migrant workers or admit you can't.
There is not a scrap of verifiable evidence in Egyptian records regarding a time when all their slaves up and left. Nor is there a scrap of evidence from Egypt that they lost most of their army, not to mention their Pharaoh whilst chasing them across the Red Sea. Nor has there ever been found a single trace of this missing army at the bottom of the Red Sea. The story of the Israelites escaping captivity simply isn't true.
I suppose you think they built the pyramids huh? LMFAO!
I have never said Matthew drew from Mark. Try to get your facts straight before you accuse. Each gospel writer only wrote what God inspired him to write.
Read 4 biographies of George Washington and you will see much of he same things about him will be included in each one of them and some things will be different.
Be specific, although you can't be, what pertinent truth do we not want to know that will undermine our faith? That isn't the silliest remark made by a secular fundie about Christianity., but it is in the top 10.
Congratulations. That qualified you to be considered for the silly remarks hall of fame. Now all you have to do is give at least one, only one, example that will prove you actually know waht you are taling about
Quote:
I have never said Matthew drew from Mark.
I think it is you who doesn't have your alleged "facts" screwed on straight, sir. I didn't quote you when I made that post, I quoted Harry. And never in a million years would I suspect you of saying anything that would hurt your cause to continue spreading disinformation about Christianity in an attempt to keep it afloat as it sinks into the sea of irrelevancy in our modern world. But as I requested in post #48 please give us truthful facts instead of merely hinting at what you want us to believe.
For instance, my fact #1 and this is specific, it is not vague as you keep insisting:
FACT 1. We haven't got a single extra-Biblical document to date all four gospels to the 1st century. FACT!
Your persistent error comes in trying to convince the world the gospels are as good for proving history as are non-Biblical documents. The vast majority of scholars do NOT recognize the Bible as anything other than an error-ridden volume that exists solely to legitimize Christian doctrine.
FACT 2. Over 90% of Mark is used word-for-word in Matthew
Quote:
The Gospel of Matthew is a later copy of the Gospel of Mark using 92% of its text. It is anonymous and it wasn't until about 150CE that the author "Matthew" was assigned It was written after the fall of the Jewish temple in 70CE, in Syria, and almost definitely written before 100CE. It went through several versions, probably edited by different authors, until it reached its final form by the 3rd century. The first two chapters, the birth of Jesus and the genealogy, were not found in the early versions.
Matthew not written by an eye-witness of Jesus.We know this because it is a copy of Mark. No eye witness of such an important person would have needed, or wanted, to simply copy someone-else's memories about him.It is written in Greek and not in the native tongues of anyone who met and followed Jesus, and it was written too late to reasonably be the memóires of an eye-witness.
Every colored quote above is a FACT! Try to match that with your innunendo and fluffing and basically just not saying anything!
As for why the writers of Matthew wrote their gospel?
Quote:
Matthew specifically set out to correct many mistakes in Mark's gospel, especially regarding comments on Jewish customs and practices.
This is EXACTLY why I titled this thread "How to Gin Up Your Story of Jesus". That's what you're trying to do right now, omega--gin up your version of Jesus' story by any means possible EXCEPT giving facts and references to support your case. Everybody around here knows that!
I do not care what your Bible says. I don't believe your Bible...remember? Your Bible has been proven to be little more than fable, fiction and fraud.
There is not a scrap of verifiable evidence in Egyptian records regarding a time when all their slaves up and left. Nor is there a scrap of evidence from Egypt that they lost most of their army, not to mention their Pharaoh whilst chasing them across the Red Sea. Nor has there ever been found a single trace of this missing army at the bottom of the Red Sea. The story of the Israelites escaping captivity simply isn't true.
I suppose you think they built the pyramids huh? LMFAO!
Another post I deleted But I did see a very interesting video that showed that Egypt on a State public works basis, did not do it with slaves. of course HAD slaves, what nation at the time didn't? But not on the scale or for the purpose indicated in the Bible, and not the ludicrous idea that it was just One people.
When or even by who a gospel was written, is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is if was inspired by God and is inerrant
If you can prove God did not inspire it, and that it is not inerrant, I gladly join you in your anti-Christian crusade.
See, folks how quickly Christian apologists change their tune when they're proven wrong?
Wasn't long ago that omega was piping "The gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!"
Then we established irrefutably that Matthew Mark Luke and John did NOT write the gospels attributed to them but their names were assigned to the gospels circa 190 CE by Irenaeus.
Quote:
Justin around 150-60 CE, explicitly quotes these books as “Memoirs of the Apostles,” but does not tell us which apostles they are to be associated with. Some thirty years after Justin, another proto-orthodox church father, Irenaeus, does identify the Gospels by name. He is the first to do so.
Now, having lost the war on whether it was the apostles who wrote them or their names were just pinned to anonymous works, omega changes his tune and says "Well does it really matter WHO wrote the gospels as long as they got written???????"
See, folks how quickly Christian apologists change their tune when they're proven wrong?
Wasn't long ago that omega was piping "The gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!"
Then we established irrefutably that Matthew Mark Luke and John did NOT write the gospels attributed to them but their names were assigned to the gospels circa 190 CE by Irenaeus.
Now, having lost the war on whether it was the apostles who wrote them or their names were just pinned to anonymous works, omega changes his tune and says "Well does it really matter WHO wrote the gospels as long as they got written???????"
Love it! Love it! Love it!
omega does a great job representing all that is wrong with Christianity in America. Long may he post.
omega does a great job representing all that is wrong with Christianity in America. Long may he post.
As I said of him in his former existence, he is worth two divisions to us.
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.
) admit that Matthew drew from Mark. Now if Matthew was an actual eyewitness to the events why on earth would he have to copy over 90% of Mark when he could just write his own first-hand account?????????? 
This is what Christians deliberately fail to see because they simply don't want to know pertinent truths about their religion that could undermine their faith and cause their entire world to collapse.
