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.
you're wrong, and you can take that thumb and put it where it belongs.
LOL, dear snowball----you are so cute you cannot even deliver an insult without being a total darling. (smmmmmack! big kiss)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
"writing" took long periods of time back then. there was all sorts of things
going on. why don't you go learn what you're talking about before reaching
mistaken conclusions and posting your irrelevant, meritless opinion ?
Many here beside myself have pointed out just how flawed, jimmied and plain-out mistaken the writers of Matthew were when they decided to pen the gospel that bears his name.
Mike Licona, one of the lions of Christian apologetics, no doubt one of your heroes, was fired from his job a few years back as theological professor
Quote:
Why? In his 700-page book defending the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, Licona proposed that the story of the resurrection of the saints described in Matthew 27 might be metaphorical rather than literal history. Why is this a problem? As a result of Licona’s questioning of Matthew 27, apparently some evangelical scholars, most notably Norman Geisler, accused Licona of denying the full inerrancy of the Bible.
Now if you're a Bible inerrantist, sweet snowball, you must side with evangelical scholars and scream for Mike's not being reinstated. But if you sympathize with Licona then you deny the literal interpretation of the passage in question where zombie saints rose out of their graves and started appearing to thousands of people in Jerusalem after Jesus rose. I once wrote that even the passage itself is stupidly constructed:
Quote:
"the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.They came out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."
That implies they came alive in the tombs and had to lay there for three days and nights until Jesus rose and then they were allowed to leave their graves. So what did they do in the graves for 72 hours, twiddle their thumbs, "Jesus, I sure wish you'd hurry up and rise already! I'm getting bored cramped up in here!"
Licona has recently backtracked his position and stated that maybe he was wrong; that maybe the literal interpretation is correct after all. Apparently the need for a paycheck to feed his family trumps maintaining dignity by sticking to his guns. Ahhh, Christian ethics. Money wins every time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
In AD 48 or 49 the emperor Claudius had had to expel the Jews from Rome because they fought viciously among themselves over someone called Chrestus.[4]
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Loveable little snowball, you are soooooooooo cute even when you blast facts to smithereens!
The one thing that rabid atheists and rabid fundamentalists have in common is their insistence on reading every single word of the gospels as literal history. The original authors never intended this. This mis-reading by both groups means the truth, the power, and the beauty of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John can get lost and neglected.
Really? Are you prepared to actually prove the four gospels are not presented as non-historical documents? Sure, I agree with you that there are deeper things in the gospels than a mere historical account. But the accounts are historically accurate.
Really? Are you prepared to actually prove the four gospels are not presented as non-historical documents? Sure, I agree with you that there are deeper things in the gospels than a mere historical account. But the accounts are historically accurate.
Where is the secular histories to back that up?...
I'm going with Jimmy on this one. I think Mark was written under the supervision of Peter. Matthew took it and expanded it.
??????
Original Post
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child
Jimmy Akin is an internationally known author and speaker. As the senior apologist at Catholic Answers, he has more than twenty years of experiencing defending and explaining the Faith. Jimmy Akin | Catholic Answers
Jimmy Akin says “In some cases, the evangelists were eyewitnesses to the events they recorded. The Gospel of Matthew is historically attributed to the tax collector Matthew Levi, who was one of the immediate followers of Jesus and who witnessed the events of his ministry. Where the Evangelists Got Their Information | Catholic Answers
But from the New American Bible sponsored by the US Catholic Conference of Bishops
"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories." scripture
Who is correct?
I'm going with Jimmy on this one. I think Mark was written under the supervision of Peter. Matthew took it and expanded it.
RESPONSE:
Jimmy is posting about Matthew's gospel, not Mark's. Matthew copied about 600 of Mark's 660 verses. If Matthew was a witness, he hardly would have copied so much from a non-witness.
Really? Are you prepared to actually prove the four gospels are not presented as non-historical documents? Sure, I agree with you that there are deeper things in the gospels than a mere historical account. But the accounts are historically accurate.
Really? Are you prepared to actually prove the four gospels are not presented as non-historical documents? Sure, I agree with you that there are deeper things in the gospels than a mere historical account. But the accounts are historically accurate.
Where is the secular histories to back that up?...
Where is the secular histories to back that up?...
RESPONSE:
We can use the New Testament to back that up.
Matthew's report that Jeus was born during the life time of King Herod who died in 4 BC verses Luke's report that Jesus was born during Quirinius's census of Judea in 6 AD.
John's report that Jesus was crucified on the day before the Passover, verses Matthew's, Mark's, and Luke's report that Jesus was crucified on the Passover.
Matthew's claim that a prophecy was that He (jesus) would be called a Nazorean when this is no such prophecy nor even any mention of Nazareth in the Old Testament.
Matthew's claim that Judas threw the thity pieces of sileve into the Temple fulfilling the prophecy of Jeremiah, when there is no such prophecy in Jeremiah.
Mark's, Luke's, and John's claim that Jesus set for and rode one animal in the convential when entering Jerusalem, while Matthew has Jesus send for two animals wih he rode when entering Jerusalem to fulfill an Old Tesatment prophecy.
etc. etc.
In each case only one statement can be true. One of the two didn't happen so was not historical.
The dodge of wanting "secular histories" isn't necessary.
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.
Money wins every time. 
