Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.

[Amarok]

Another fine example of your selectivity in dealing with the consensus of scholars.  I don't think we've identified a single example, yet, of you actually agreeing with scholarship on any particular.

Again consensus doesn't mean true

---

Showing your ignorance again I see. Matthew was an educated man, he was a former tax collector, you should read before making yourself look sooooo dumb. The reason we have them in Greek is because they are copies, understand, most likely not. Greek was a language spoken by many in the Middle East at that time, just as English is spoken around the world.

GC

You retard, Matthew wasn't a tax collector but a toll booth worker - read the Matthew 9:9.

Tax collectors would have had to recieve education in accounting and a certain degree of functional literacy for managing records, and not much more especially if he was a toll booth worker like Matthew sitting at a booth to collect tolls. Meaning that Matthew was even lesser than a regular tax collector. 

Also even in the Synoptic Gospels tax collectors are frequently associated with sinners and Gentiles, and that the Pharisees repeatedly accuse Jesus for associating with them. Needless to say this view of Matthew’s occupation does not cast Matthew, a tax collector working at toll booth, as someone deeply familiar with Jewish Law or with extensive religious training.

The author had extensive knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and a keen concern for Jewish observance and the role of the Law. It is doubtful that a toll booth worker would have the kind of religious and literary education needed to produce this Gospel.

And when it comes to language in Roman Palestine Catherine Hezser in her book "Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine" explains that tax collectors and toll collectors in Judea were jobs performed by Jews collecting either for the Jewish authorities or Jewish contractors, we have every reason to expect that the language of the tax bureaucracy was Hebrew or Aramaic. In fact, she writes:
“The rabbis would try to keep people from registering Greek contracts in public archives, since they would then automatically be taken out of their own sphere of influence. Only Hebrew and Aramaic documents would be subjected to native law, i.e. Torah and rabbinic law in the case of Palestine.”

And to strike another nail it wouldn't matter if it were in the 60s either (it wasn't ) but it doesn't help his case if it was.

[Jehanne]

Indeed, the author of Matthew nowhere even claims to be "Matthew"; in fact, the "Gospel according to Matthew" did not appear until the second century.

 Why should he need to make that claim it wasn't important to them that they were acknowledged. It was the word of God that was important. The Gospel of Matthew was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Matthew's Gospel was heavy on prophecy it is an important part of the Gospel, so if the Gospel was written after the fall of Jerusalem and the foretelling of the temples destruction it would have been mentioned in Matthew's Gospel. As for the Gospel of Matthew appearing in the second century those are copies and by simple logic the original had to be written before the copies, makes utter sense doesn't it.

GC

The Gospel of Peter claims, explicitly, to have been written by the Apostle Peter.  Do you accept that as being authentic?

[Godscreated]

 Why should he need to make that claim it wasn't important to them that they were acknowledged. It was the word of God that was important. The Gospel of Matthew was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Matthew's Gospel was heavy on prophecy it is an important part of the Gospel, so if the Gospel was written after the fall of Jerusalem and the foretelling of the temples destruction it would have been mentioned in Matthew's Gospel. As for the Gospel of Matthew appearing in the second century those are copies and by simple logic the original had to be written before the copies, makes utter sense doesn't it.

GC

The Gospel of Peter claims, explicitly, to have been written by the Apostle Peter.  Do you accept that as being authentic?

 The professionals in their fields determine what is authentic, I trust them to do their jobs wisely. Seems you have avoided my statement to answer your own. Matthew would have written about the temples destruction if the book had been written after the 70's. Besides all this anyone can claim to have written a certain book, Matthew knew that it wasn't important for him to be glorified, it was God who he was bring glory to.

GC

[Foxaèr]

It's interesting how theists trust scholars in the field of theology, yet they cannot trust scholars in the field of science.

[Fake Messiah]

It's interesting how theists trust scholars in the field of theology, yet they cannot trust scholars in the field of science.

LOL! Where did you get an idea that GC trusts scholars in field of theology and other biblical disciplines? Because there are no Biblical & theology scholars who consider that Matthew was writer of "Matthew". GC is simply a lunatic who writes ad hoc nonsense how ever he sees fit with no consideration that he is contradicting himself from post to post.

Not only do most scholars believe the book was put together by an unknown Jewish Christian sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE but they also consider that Antioch of Syria is as a likely place of writing. The only "scholars" who believe that Matthew is an actual writer of "Matthew" are guys like Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind, Steven Anderson, (also all flat earthers) who are not actual scholars but just prominent Christian lunatics.

[Jehanne]

The Gospel of Peter claims, explicitly, to have been written by the Apostle Peter.  Do you accept that as being authentic?

 The professionals in their fields determine what is authentic, I trust them to do their jobs wisely. Seems you have avoided my statement to answer your own. Matthew would have written about the temples destruction if the book had been written after the 70's. Besides all this anyone can claim to have written a certain book, Matthew knew that it wasn't important for him to be glorified, it was God who he was bring glory to.

GC

And, so, you accept the datings as found here:

Early Christian Writings

[Amarok]

 The professionals in their fields determine what is authentic, I trust them to do their jobs wisely.

As long as they agree with you ......Sorry consensus is not truth n

Seems you have avoided my statement to answer your own. Matthew would have written about the temples destruction if the book had been written after the 70's. Besides all this anyone can claim to have written a certain book, Matthew knew that it wasn't important for him to be glorified, it was God who he was bring glory to.

All false

[The Grand Nudger]

Many christians suffer from subtle misconceptions as to what scholars are referring to with the term "authenticity".  This lack of familiarity with the terms use is exploited by charlatans, and produces beliefs such as those in thread.

[Godscreated]

 The professionals in their fields determine what is authentic, I trust them to do their jobs wisely. Seems you have avoided my statement to answer your own. Matthew would have written about the temples destruction if the book had been written after the 70's. Besides all this anyone can claim to have written a certain book, Matthew knew that it wasn't important for him to be glorified, it was God who he was bring glory to.

GC

And, so, you accept the datings as found here:

Early Christian Writings

 I'm not familiar with many of those and I see some of the ones I do know as miss dated. There are those that I do not believe to be of value to the Christian Bible. Just like our last conversation you are dancing around the discussion to prove nothing of importance as I see it. You have avoided twice now my original statement to you in this thread, why?

GC

---

 The professionals in their fields determine what is authentic, I trust them to do their jobs wisely.

As long as they agree with you ......Sorry consensus is not truth n

Seems you have avoided my statement to answer your own. Matthew would have written about the temples destruction if the book had been written after the 70's. Besides all this anyone can claim to have written a certain book, Matthew knew that it wasn't important for him to be glorified, it was God who he was bring glory to.

All false

  You need to bring proof of what you say instead of blabbering like a first grader.

GC

---

It's interesting how theists trust scholars in the field of theology, yet they cannot trust scholars in the field of science.

 Many in the field of science are not looking for the truth, they are promoting their truth which is a fairy tale at best. Those in science who do search for truth usually do their work in ways that bring attention to what they are doing and not themselves.

GC

[Foxaèr]

 Many in the field of science are not looking for the truth, they are promoting their truth which is a fairy tale at best. Those in science who do search for truth usually do their work in ways that bring attention to what they are doing and not themselves.

GC

So you would rather believe the lies of the church's view of science over the truth. Gotcha.