Tacitus

[Zack]

Would this be the same Tacitus that wrote of Calgacus' speech, prior to the Battle of Mons Graupius, in the Agricola? Or the Tacitus that wrote the aforementioned Annals from secondary documents?

The only evidentiary value I find in either the New or Old Testaments, is from a strictly literary study. This form of examination finds different writing styles, authors, and dates of authorship to vary within individual books. I find this hard to overlook when the Bible is proclaimed to be fact or Truth.

How many people have been suspected, convicted, and/or put to death on eyewitness testimony in this country that have since been exonerated?


I would love to read the Book of Fidel.

[revivin]

So, to be clear, you're making a claim and then refusing to even provide a citation that this claim is official, biblically?

I have no reason to believe Matthew is not the author of Matthew since the earliest church history ascribe this book to him and there is no reason to suggest otherwise or to think someone else did it. There are no candidates even.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I can claim that I am god and, using your own logic, you would have to accept it as evidence.

We have 27 books of the NT of multiply corroborated testimony. How many books do you have for your claim?

I think this might be the first time the human race has ever heard you claim you are God.

Really? I can think of quite a few people who have claimed that they were/are god.

And anyway, as others have repeatedly told you, claiming x is not the same as evidencing x. I don't know how many times people have to say this before you understand but the bible is simply a claim. Having multiple claims don't make them anything other than claims, no matter how much you believe otherwise.

Ergo, I my claim to being a god is no more or less valid than those made in the bible.

[revivin]

Really? I can think of quite a few people who have claimed that they were/are god

This is the first time I think people might be hearing you claim to be God.

Whereas the God of the Bible has been showing Himself through the 40 writers of the Bible over 1500 years.

What could be better proof than this?

[Esquilax]

So, to be clear, you're making a claim and then refusing to even provide a citation that this claim is official, biblically?

I have no reason to believe Matthew is not the author of Matthew since the earliest church history ascribe this book to him and there is no reason to suggest otherwise or to think someone else did it. There are no candidates even.

Modern gospel scholars don't attribute the authorship of Matthew to Matthew, since whoever did author it appears to have used the gospel of Mark as a source document. See for yourself.

Why do I know more about the bible than you do, christian soldier?

[Tobie]

Really? I can think of quite a few people who have claimed that they were/are god

This is the first time I think people might be hearing you claim to be God.

Whereas the God of the Bible has been showing Himself through the 40 writers of the Bible over 1500 years.

What could be better proof than this?

Claims do not gain any truth in the repeating of them. People believed the Earth was the centre of the universe for many more years than that, but they turned out to be wrong.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Really? I can think of quite a few people who have claimed that they were/are god

This is the first time I think people might be hearing you claim to be God.

Whereas the God of the Bible has been showing Himself through the 40 writers of the Bible over 1500 years.

What could be better proof than this?

You've worn down my patience considerably with your inability to understand even the most rudimentary logic. Your inability to accept this leads me to think that either you're incapable of understanding anything that doesn't confirm to your contorted perspective on reality (no doubt as a result of years of calculated and successful indoctrination and brainwashing) or you're trolling us for a reaction.

Neither eventuality particularly concerns me.

[modhat] You've been given fair warning by me. There will be consequences for ignoring this. [/modhat]

[revivin]

Modern gospel scholars don't attribute

Modern gospel scholars do attribute Matthew to Matthew. There are shared elements between each of the books and different combination of the books. It is very well multiply attested. You couldn't give one reason why you think Matthew didn't write Matthew.

Can you find better proof than this?

[Esquilax]

Modern gospel scholars don't attribute

Modern gospel scholars do attribute Matthew to Matthew. There are shared elements between each of the books and different combination of the books. It is very well multiply attested. You couldn't give one reason why you think Matthew didn't write Matthew.

Can you find better proof than this?

That's it? You're just going to make an assertion, where I provided a reference? You're just gonna go "nuh uh!"

Are you stupid, insane, or just bad at argumentation?

Seriously: if you continue to simply repeat yourself, you will be banned.

[revivin]

I can understand why you need to say that Matthew didn't write Matthew, Mark didn't write Mark, John didn't write John and Luke didn't write Luke because it would mean you would have to accept their testimony. Paul wrote 1 Cor. and Gal. 1 & 2. Therein he said he spent 15 days with Peter. This is as sure as anything in the NT. It tells us the Apostles truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead.

---

You're just going to make an assertion,

You're making the assertion Matthew didn't write Matthew. Where's your evidence?