RE: If theists understood "evidence"
October 8, 2018 at 3:24 pm
(This post was last modified: October 8, 2018 at 3:26 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(October 8, 2018 at 3:20 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(October 8, 2018 at 2:45 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: 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
The opinions that you are giving go against the broad scholarly consensus:
Quote:The majority view among scholars is that Matthew was a product of the last quarter of the 1st century.[23][Notes 1] This makes it a work of the second generation of Christians, for whom the defining event was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in AD 70 in the course of the First Jewish–Roman War (AD 66–73); from this point on, what had begun with Jesus of Nazareth as a Jewish messianic movement became an increasingly Gentile phenomenon evolving in time into a separate religion.[24] The Christian community to which Matthew belonged, like many 1st-century Christians, was still part of the larger Jewish community: hence the designation Jewish Christian to describe them.[25] The relationship of Matthew to this wider world of Judaism remains a subject of study and contention, the principal question being to what extent, if any, Matthew's community had cut itself off from its Jewish roots.[26] Certainly there was conflict between Matthew's group and other Jewish groups, and it is generally agreed that the root of the conflict was the Matthew community's belief in Jesus as the Messiah and authoritative interpreter of the law, as one risen from the dead and uniquely endowed with divine authority.[27]
The author of Matthew wrote for a community of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians located probably in Syria (Antioch, the largest city in Roman Syria and the third-largest in the empire, is often mentioned).[28] Unlike Mark, Matthew never bothers to explain Jewish customs, since his intended audience was a Jewish one; unlike Luke, who traces Jesus' ancestry back to Adam, father of the human race, he traces it only to Abraham, father of the Jews; of his three presumed sources only "M", the material from his own community, refers to a "church" (ecclesia), an organised group with rules for keeping order; and the content of "M" suggests that this community was strict in keeping the Jewish law, holding that they must exceed the scribes and the Pharisees in "righteousness" (adherence to Jewish law).[29] Writing from within a Jewish-Christian community growing increasingly distant from other Jews and becoming increasingly Gentile in its membership and outlook, Matthew put down in his gospel his vision "of an assembly or church in which both Jew and Gentile would flourish together".
Wikipedia -- Gosepl of Matthew, Setting and Date
Now, your "rebuttal" will be, "Why do scholars feel this way? What are the reasons that they are giving for this view?" But, yours is still a minority viewpoint.
Yep... and Wallace has been quoted as saying that pretty much the main reason for late dating is because of the prophecy of the destruction of the temple. Just curious if there was anything else substantial you where aware of, that didn’t beg the question.
Also, I don’t feel any problem rejecting an appeal to authority, if reason for the claim can’t be given.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther