If theists understood "evidence"

[Jehanne]

Read the footnote:

This view is based on three arguments: (a) the setting reflects the final separation of Church and Synagogue, about 85 AD; (b) it reflects the capture of Rome and destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD; © it uses Mark, usually dated around 70 AD, as a source. (See R.T France (2007), "The Gospel of Matthew", p. 18.) France himself is not convinced by the majority – see his Commentary, pp. 18–19.

[RoadRunner79]

Read the footnote:

This view is based on three arguments: (a) the setting reflects the final separation of Church and Synagogue, about 85 AD; (b) it reflects the capture of Rome and destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD; © it uses Mark, usually dated around 70 AD, as a source. (See R.T France (2007), "The Gospel of Matthew", p. 18.) France himself is not convinced by the majority – see his Commentary, pp. 18–19.

So it seems like nothing substantial to go against the views of those who where much closer to the events (as well as question begging).  I'm guessing that the seperation of Church and Synagogue is an interpretation; can it be interpreted in other ways, that don't conflict?

I would also add a question of what exactly constitutes a majority of scholars here.   It seems that this phrase is often thrown around, and at times on competing ideas.   Are you talking 99% or 49%-51%?   It seems that the opinions in such scholarly circles sway often without evidence or reason but more the mood of academia in regards to Christianity.  So yes.... I'm going to ask why, and for more than just an appeal to authority.

[Jehanne]

And, just to be clear, most scholars of the Quran regard it as being divinely inspired, but I doubt that is enough "scholarly authority" to convince you of its divine authorship!

But, you act like the early Church(es) unanimously considered the Gospel of Matthew to be divinely inspired, and again, such was not how the New Testament came to be:

Wikipedia -- Development of the New Testament canon

[Aliza]

We'd all be believers.  

As it is, believers confuse evidence for delusion.  

No surprise there.

I think I understand evidence. Why wouldn't I understand evidence just because I'm a theist?

[Angrboda]

The Gospel of Peter was likely written "late", but then, again, so was Matthew:

Early Christian Writings

Neither are serious historical accounts of the life of Jesus.

Why do you think that it was written late?  What is your evidence or reasons?   A few of the NT documents did have some dispute over whether they should be included; but, I don't think that Matthew was one of them.  It seems that the early Church believed that it was Matthew the very same disciple who founded some of those Churches.  We also see the same accounts quoted early in the Church, and being used for teaching.   

https://bible.org/seriespage/matthew-int...nd-outline

In the first place, the late dating of the Gospel of Peter seems to be based on nothing more than speculation. If you have reason to think otherwise, please present it. Ignoring the internal evidence, which doesn't really lead us to Matthew, the article you quote implies that the gospel of Matthew was written by the same author as that of the work Papias cites solely by virtue of the fact that the gospel of Matthew was later attributed to Matthew. It gives no other justification for the assumption. We can be confident that the work Papias was citing was not the gospel of Matthew that we have today, and it's unclear whether Ignatius is alluding to events in the work that Papias is referencing, or to the gospel of Matthew that we have today; it could be either. So the best we can say is that there is evidence to indicate that a work attributed to Matthew existed by the first half of the second century, and an anonymous gospel which likely drew from earlier sources attributed to Matthew existed by the latter half of the second century. According to Wikipedia, the gospel of Peter is also believed to date to the first half of the second century. There appears strong reason to believe that neither were written by eye witnesses. How any of this shows that the gospel of Matthew should be privileged above the gospel of Peter is a mystery to me (and doctrinal positions don't count as that argument leads nowhere). So what exactly are you basing your preference for Matthew over Peter upon?

[Amarok]

Ah Roads trying the "gospels were written early argument " no they weren't they were written within a lifetime of the supposed events and not by eyewitnesses .

---

This seems like the same response I have gotten when asking similar questions of atheists claims that theists just need to be educated or lack critical thinking .   It's appears (to me) to be nothing more than sophism, and a way to disparage others, without any real solid backing or reason for the claim.   As usual, the result is just senseless attacks on Christianity, with nothing to support it.   I wonder if that fits under the prime directive rule?

Or is this just a reflection of your failure to hook any fish and your whiny persecution complex

---

Do they use reason and arguments to do this, or is it more just feelings?

Reason .It's theists who use feels .

---

Oh yes.... witness testimony is not evidence.
So then.... set Bill Cosby FREEE!!!!   We also seemed to have shown, that is not the case recently, or are you saying that the democrats had no reason to cite delay and to not confirm Kavenaugh?

As well, witness testimony is used in historical research, and in criminal trials all the time.   Atheists just seem to have double standards when it comes to things that don't fit their narrative.

So  much stupid ....

---

Well feelings are subjective.   Do you put much weight in feelings?  I see feelings as perhaps a need to look closer, or further investigate.   However, I don't expect others to have the same feelings that I do, or to accept them.   I think that you need a rational case to dismiss evidence.

1. you don't have any 

2. Nope this attempt to burden shift fails

---

Reasonable criticism and critique.  Sure! I think that Christianity has certainly been and should be investigated.   However; double standards and hyper-skepticism no.

Hyper-skepticism is theist speak for "you don't buy my BS " and you have yet to show any double standards you just want to give your foolish fairy tales credibility they don't have 

Also, I wouldn't recommend your approach described either.

LOL

[RoadRunner79]

But, you act like the early Church(es) unanimously considered the Gospel of Matthew to be divinely inspired, and again, such was not how the New Testament came to be:

Wikipedia -- Development of the New Testament canon

Yes, I am aware, that the declaration of Canon was not perhaps as authoritative and clear cut as some might like.  I also no some who use information like this selectively and incompletly to suggest things that are not true.   Kind of like trying to surprise people that the manuscripts are filled with errors, but suggesting in silence something other than what the data indicates.

It is interesting that you bring up Marconianism, referred to early in the Church as being unorthodox, and given a fair amount of credit for the start of the focus on Apostolic succession by Irenaeus.  I understand that there where some groups (which we can see as isolated and having some growth in history) which did differ.  And it was the connection of the teaching of the apostles and those who knew Jesus, that was the answer which was traced back to; in order to resolve this.   But there where some who certainly had their own ideas which did not trace back to Christ.

You see this as well in Paul's letter to the Gallations;  which most scholars date back to the 40-50s or at latest 60's and which wikipedia states has near universal consensus was written by the Apostle Paul (since I know such things of are great concern to you).   Even here, there are those who where trying to distort the Gospel for their own ends, and Paul gives a rather stiff warning that if they or another teach you any other Gospel, that they are  to be accursed. With this, I find it rather difficult to believe, given that we do have quite a few disputes in history over authorship and canon, that the authorship of the Gospels would go so unnoticed a century later in some conspiracy theory to attribute authorship to them. And then there is the question of why would they do this?   You don't see in the early writings, the challenges and discussions as to the historicity of these things, which largely arose in the 19th century.

---

Why do you think that it was written late?  What is your evidence or reasons?   A few of the NT documents did have some dispute over whether they should be included; but, I don't think that Matthew was one of them.  It seems that the early Church believed that it was Matthew the very same disciple who founded some of those Churches.  We also see the same accounts quoted early in the Church, and being used for teaching.   

https://bible.org/seriespage/matthew-int...nd-outline

In the first place, the late dating of the Gospel of Peter seems to be based on nothing more than speculation.  If you have reason to think otherwise, please present it.  Ignoring the internal evidence, which doesn't really lead us to Matthew, the article you quote implies that the gospel of Matthew was written by the same author as that of the work Papias cites solely by virtue of the fact that the gospel of Matthew was later attributed to Matthew.  It gives no other justification for the assumption.  We can be confident that the work Papias was citing was not the gospel of Matthew that we have today, and it's unclear whether Ignatius is alluding to events in the work that Papias is referencing, or to the gospel of Matthew that we have today; it could be either.  So the best we can say is that there is evidence to indicate that a work attributed to Matthew existed by the first half of the second century, and an anonymous gospel which likely drew from earlier sources attributed to Matthew existed by the latter half of the second century.  According to Wikipedia, the gospel of Peter is also believed to date to the first half of the second century.  There appears strong reason to believe that neither were written by eye witnesses.  How any of this shows that the gospel of Matthew should be privileged above the gospel of Peter is a mystery to me (and doctrinal positions don't count as that argument leads nowhere).  So what exactly are you basing your preference for Matthew over Peter upon?

See above....I think I answer some of your questions.

I am curious in your support for the claims you made which you make from above though. And what gives you such force to use the highlighted words.

1. )  We can be confident that the work Papias was citing was not the gospel of Matthew that we have today
2.)  an anonymous gospel which likely drew from earlier sources attributed to Matthew existed by the latter half of the second century
3. ) There appears strong reason to believe that neither were written by eye witnesses.

I would like to know the reasons for this confidence in these claims.

[Angrboda]

In the first place, the late dating of the Gospel of Peter seems to be based on nothing more than speculation.  If you have reason to think otherwise, please present it.  Ignoring the internal evidence, which doesn't really lead us to Matthew, the article you quote implies that the gospel of Matthew was written by the same author as that of the work Papias cites solely by virtue of the fact that the gospel of Matthew was later attributed to Matthew.  It gives no other justification for the assumption.  We can be confident that the work Papias was citing was not the gospel of Matthew that we have today, and it's unclear whether Ignatius is alluding to events in the work that Papias is referencing, or to the gospel of Matthew that we have today; it could be either.  So the best we can say is that there is evidence to indicate that a work attributed to Matthew existed by the first half of the second century, and an anonymous gospel which likely drew from earlier sources attributed to Matthew existed by the latter half of the second century.  According to Wikipedia, the gospel of Peter is also believed to date to the first half of the second century.  There appears strong reason to believe that neither were written by eye witnesses.  How any of this shows that the gospel of Matthew should be privileged above the gospel of Peter is a mystery to me (and doctrinal positions don't count as that argument leads nowhere).  So what exactly are you basing your preference for Matthew over Peter upon?

See above....I think I answer some of your questions.

No, not really. Paul presumably predates all the Gospels. I don't see where you went from there as your post didn't make much sense.

I am curious in your support for the claims you made which you make from above though. And what gives you such force to use the highlighted words.

1. )  We can be confident that the work Papias was citing was not the gospel of Matthew that we have today

Because the gospel that Papias refers to was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek.

2.)  an anonymous gospel which likely drew from earlier sources attributed to Matthew existed by the latter half of the second century

A book without a clear attribution has an unknown or anonymous author. The text itself doesn't indicate the author and we have only second hand, late attribution of it to Matthew. The consensus opinion of scholars is that it was anonymous. As to it likely being dependent upon earlier sources, that seems rather obvious given the tradition, examples of such as in the reuse of Mark and the Thomas Sayings, as well as the fact that its composition is rather late to be the testimony of an eye witness. Additionally there are textual dependencies between Matthew and the other gospels which indicate that Matthew drew upon other sources. I don't know why you consider suggesting that something likely drew on earlier sources is using words with force, but whatever.

3. ) There appears strong reason to believe that neither were written by eye witnesses.

Both are rather late for them to be eye witnesses, and, as to the gospel we do have, there is no claim of authorship; both the lateness and lack of authorial attribution argue against the author of the later work being Matthew. Additionally, it seems rather unlikely that an eye witness would depend upon another source other than himself. That doesn't fit with the theory that the gospel of Matthew is the product of an eye witness.

I would like to know the reasons for this confidence in these claims.

And I'd like to know if you're doing more than dicking the dog with these questions. I asked you a question which you don't seem to have answered with anything but some nonsense theory about Paul.

[Amarok]

See above....I think I answer some of your questions.

No, not really.  Paul presumably predates all the Gospels.  I don't see where you went from there as your post didn't make much sense.

I am curious in your support for the claims you made which you make from above though. And what gives you such force to use the highlighted words.

1. )  We can be confident that the work Papias was citing was not the gospel of Matthew that we have today

Because the gospel that Papias refers to was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek.

2.)  an anonymous gospel which likely drew from earlier sources attributed to Matthew existed by the latter half of the second century

A book without a clear attribution has an unknown or anonymous author.  The text itself doesn't indicate the author and we have only second hand, late attribution of it to Matthew.  The consensus opinion of scholars is that it was anonymous.  As to it likely being dependent upon earlier sources, that seems rather obvious given the tradition, examples of such as in the reuse of Mark and the Thomas Sayings, as well as the fact that its composition is rather late to be the testimony of an eye witness.  Additionally there are textual dependencies between Matthew and the other gospels which indicate that Matthew drew upon other sources.  I don't know why you consider suggesting that something likely drew on earlier sources is using words with force, but whatever.

3. ) There appears strong reason to believe that neither were written by eye witnesses.

Both are rather late for them to be eye witnesses, and, as to the gospel we do have, there is no claim of authorship; both the lateness and lack of authorial attribution argue against the author of the later work being Matthew.

I would like to know the reasons for this confidence in these claims.

And I'd like to know if you're doing more than dicking the dog with these questions.  I asked you a question which you don't seem to have answered with anything but some nonsense theory about Paul.

As always Jorm cutting right through Roads bull.

[Amarok]

Oh yes.... witness testimony is not evidence.
So then.... set Bill Cosby FREEE!!!!   We also seemed to have shown, that is not the case recently, or are you saying that the democrats had no reason to cite delay and to not confirm Kavenaugh?

As well, witness testimony is used in historical research, and in criminal trials all the time.   Atheists just seem to have double standards when it comes to things that don't fit their narrative.

Gotta love how Road confuses real standards with double standards despite being shown the difference over and over and over