Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You do not know my knowledge of science. This is an ad hom deflection.
yes. Whatever you are accusing..
yes, it is. You do not get to redefine 'ad hominem' to support your debating style or tactics. Anything 'to the man', instead of 'to the topic', is ad hom.
Seriously? You see no references to Matthew in the NT? Not listed as a disciple?
Straw man I have not argues this at all, and the accusation that i 'run off!', is also false and a denigrating smear.
So you assert, without evidence.
you do not recognize this as an ad hominem deflection? Evading evidence with cheap shots?
Nothing has been 'proved!', or 'disproved!', here.. just asserted.. with, of course, some gratuitous ad hom..
you sure are obsessed with my demons!
To defend Christianity and expose lies and false narratives.
don't project your biases and tactics on me.
..not sure of your criticism.. since they quote the description about John consistently, this proves error?Mark: {1:3} The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Matthew: {3:3} ............... The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
And here comes Luke with his own 'individual' account.
Luke: {3:4} .................... The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Couldn't tell 'em apart!
I'm not 'making!' anybody anything. Your words and arguments either promote truth and understanding, or they promote lies and phony caricatures. I can only respond to the words on the screen.
Accused, without evidence or argument.
You are accusing. I am defending. I can only present facts, as they refute the false accusations, and i have done that consistently in this thread. The accusers have been very lax with evidence, mostly using fallacies to promote the narratives.
You do not know my knowledge of science. This is an ad hom deflection.
yes. Whatever you are accusing..
yes, it is. You do not get to redefine 'ad hominem' to support your debating style or tactics. Anything 'to the man', instead of 'to the topic', is ad hom.
Seriously? You see no references to Matthew in the NT? Not listed as a disciple?
Straw man I have not argues this at all, and the accusation that i 'run off!', is also false and a denigrating smear.
I will get to the point of ignoring posters who just distort my posts, accuse me falsely, and insult constantly.
Believe and accuse whatever you want. I am under no obligation to defend myself constantly from false accusations and distortions.
So you assert, without evidence.
you do not recognize this as an ad hominem deflection? Evading evidence with cheap shots?
Nothing has been 'proved!', or 'disproved!', here.. just asserted.. with, of course, some gratuitous ad hom..
you sure are obsessed with my demons!
To defend Christianity and expose lies and false narratives.
What is your agenda? To pound the propaganda drum, and promote the lies and false narratives?
don't project your biases and tactics on me.
..not sure of your criticism.. since they quote the description about John consistently, this proves error?
If they agree on an account, 'Error! Coping!'.. if they fiffer, 'Error! Conflict!'
As long as you presumption of 'error!' is there, that is all that matters, it seems.
I'm not 'making!' anybody anything. Your words and arguments either promote truth and understanding, or they promote lies and phony caricatures. I can only respond to the words on the screen.
Accused, without evidence or argument.
You are accusing. I am defending. I can only present facts, as they refute the false accusations, and i have done that consistently in this thread. The accusers have been very lax with evidence, mostly using fallacies to promote the narratives.
I'll repeat what i said earlier:
..if nobody wants to address topical points, but just have a dogpile of ad hom, I'll retire for the morning and let you have your fun. When you get it out of your system (or if!), we can return to the subject..
1. Make the charge of 'error or change, or anything you consider damning toward Christianity.
2. Provide evidence for your accusations.
What is asserted without evidence, will be dismissed without evidence.
Those are theories, or possibilities. They are not facts, and they do not exclude Matthew's authorship.
As an aside, some scholars have theorised, based on the structure and composition, that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic.
Do you have anything more than empty claims? How about a reliable source? Christian apologist sites do not count as reliable sources.
I have quoted early historians and apologists, defending false accusations against Christianity and the bible, then as now. You can dismiss their historical and scholarly work if you wish, in favor of 2000 years removed speculations and smears from anti-christian sites.
What makes you think that Irenaeus, much less Eusibius ever talked to any eyewitnesses? Irenaeus was not even born until roughly a hundred years after Jesus's death. He did not speak to any eyewitnesses. The reason that modern scholars put Mark first is because entire sections are copied by Luke and Matthew. They did not have an organized scholarship in those days. That is a more modern invention and does allow us to know a bit more than those who wrote a mere one to two hundred years after the event.
non sequitur. You have no evidence to compel this conclusion. You merely assert a belief.
exactly. You believe this, nothing more. The evidence all suggests otherwise. Eusibius, Irenaeus , Papius, the other disciples, Paul, and all contemporaries give no indication that Matthew's gospel was written by any other. Many confirm and affirm his authorship.
you can doubt whatever you want. But are those doubts evidence based? Or prejudice?
So you believe. So you assert. This is just a subjective opinion, and does not support your claims of error or change.
I have quoted early historians and apologists, defending false accusations against Christianity and the bible, then as now. You can dismiss their historical and scholarly work if you wish, in favor of 2000 years removed speculations and smears from anti-christian sites.
Just to cut in here for a moment -
I find this passage from Irenaeus 3.3.3 to be a particularly fascinating look into the early church, with references to actual apostles, & showing a theological line & continuity of the faith.. in the context of growing heresy & false doctrines that were corrupting influences on the original message.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time, a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
I find the history & scholarship of the early Christians to be founded in accurate necessity. Lies and heresies abounded, then as now, and a credible, factual record of the life of Christ and the early Apostles was necessary, to preserve, inviolate, the message of salvation. Deceivers and corruptors of the message were (and are), Legion.
This phrase is particularly relevant, even now:
"since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood,"
It is absurd to give more credence to some Johnny come lately, with an agenda to destroy Christianity and promote their competing worldview. The history and scholarship of Christianity is above reproach, and has set the standards for history and scholarship for millennia. The audacity of some anti-christian propagandist to claim more credibility than the millennia of careful scholarship, research, archaeology, and textual criticism boggles the mind.
Ironically, while my mind is boggled by the audacity of anti-christian propagandists, bobbleheaded indoctrinees nod in obeisance.
Boggled or bobbled.. that is the response to propagandists..
I find this passage from Irenaeus 3.3.3 to be a particularly fascinating look into the early church, with references to actual apostles, & showing a theological line & continuity of the faith.. in the context of growing heresy & false doctrines that were corrupting influences on the original message.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time, a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
I find the history & scholarship of the early Christians to be founded in accurate necessity. Lies and heresies abounded, then as now, and a credible, factual record of the life of Christ and the early Apostles was necessary, to preserve, inviolate, the message of salvation. Deceivers and corruptors of the message were (and are), Legion.
This phrase is particularly relevant, even now:
"since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood,"
It is absurd to give more credence to some Johnny come lately, with an agenda to destroy Christianity and promote their competing worldview. The history and scholarship of Christianity is above reproach, and has set the standards for history and scholarship for millennia. The audacity of some anti-christian propagandist to claim more credibility than the millennia of careful scholarship, research, archaeology, and textual criticism boggles the mind.
Ironically, while my mind is boggled by the audacity of anti-christian propagandists, bobbleheaded indoctrinees nod in obeisance.
Boggled or bobbled.. that is the response to propagandists..