The Resurrection is it provable?

[Subduction Zone]

Never said "all"... I said Matthew and John. Obviously the writer of Luke is a biography and a compilation of those who were eye witnesses. A deposition of sorts.

The early church is unanimous in their acceptance of Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen all report Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias (c. AD 60-130) writes, “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”
Papias, “Fragments of Papias,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 155.

So you are wrong.

Your link does not work. And it does not appear to be a scholarly work at any rate. Do you have anything better? In fact your source tells us that Matthew was not the author of Matthew. Your sources tells us that Matthew wrote a record in Hebrew. Matthew was originally written in Greek. By a someone classically trained in Greek. That was not Matthew.

Luke's work even tells you that it is not an eyewitness account. You keep misreading those opening verses. He claims that the stories began with eyewitnesses, but he never claimed to talk to any.

John

Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD) Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,—that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things

Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies, 1.8.5.” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 328.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 AD), as quoted by the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263-339 AD) denotes the following:

Again, in the same books Clement has set down a tradition which he had received from the elders before him, in regard to the order of the Gospels, to the following effect. He says that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed in the following circumstances:—

Peter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, inasmuch as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter’s knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged. But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel

Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “The Martyrdom of Ignatius,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 130.

And, again, you are wrong.

No, he is not. Again, you used a non-scholarly source. In this case one written by liars for Jesus. Apologetics sites are far from scholarly. His sources still beat yours.

I love the words like "probably" which means they aren't sure and then talk like they are right. And, again, I have already shown that the statements are wrong as far "none were eyewitness while they use the word "almost" certainly.

Honest sources do that. There is no way to be absolutely sure. You use sources that do not own up to the fact that their beliefs are not well supported. They simply declare them to be correct. Once again, your sources are shown to be poor sources when they cannot be honest.

I prefer a "dates between" approach which would be more honest.

Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.
Mark between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.
Luke was written before A.D. 62
John appears to have been written in the ’80s to ’90s.

When were the gospels written and by whom?

Mark, of course, wrote down what Peter said who was an eye-witness.

That would be nice if it were true, but again, Mark was a name attached to that Gospel. And your source misled you. Papias never claimed that the Gospel of Mark was by Mark, or that the Gospel of Matthew was by Matthew. He only said that those two wrote down what they knew. Since neither of them were very likely at all to have been well instructed in classical Greek it is rather dubious that they wrote the books named for them.

Do you understand the difference between someone saying "Mark wrote some records" and "Mark wrote these records"?

Wikipedia is actually a far better source than the one that you used since when someone puts something in a page there one has to be able to show up that his changes are valid. If not it will quickly be edited by someone that can show that his work is correct by using unbiased historical sources.

From the Wikipedia article on Papias:

On Mark, Papias cites John the Elder:

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai,[note 1] but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

The excerpt regarding Matthew says only:

Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could.[note 2]

How to interpret these quotations from Papias has long been a matter of controversy, as the original context for each is missing and the Greek is in several respects ambiguous and seems to employ technical rhetorical terminology. For one thing, it is not even explicit that the writings by Mark and Matthew are the canonical Gospels bearing those names.


Papias of Hierapolis - Wikipedia

So, what you are saying is that even though there are million of eyewitnesses to Mohammad, he never existed... got it.

Are you trying to misunderstand on purpose?

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

What's the historical evidence?

The New Testament, The testimony of some of the early church fathers, and a few non-Christian sources.

All of which attest to the legitimate belief of the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection.

 

[Sheldon]

The New Testament, The testimony of some of the early church fathers, and a few non-Christian sources.

All of which attest to the legitimate belief of the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection.

There are no independent sources that do this, only some scant evidence for that someone called Jesus was crucified, everything else is anonymous unevidenced hearsay. The resurrection is simply an unevidenced appeal to mystery, even if you had signed affidavits from Mary Joseph, each of the disciples, and Pontius Pilate that a body disappeared, it would just get a so what, nothing supernatural is required to explain that, nor would it explain it anyway. as with all such woo woo superstition it has no explanatory powers whatsoever.

However you don't have even that, just unevidenced hearsay claims, from unknown sources, peddling risible superstition, in an epoch of ignorance and superstition.

 

[Sheldon]

joelr said: ↑
Then why did you link to an amateur apologetics site that used no scholars, sources or peer-reviewed material?
Why do you believe an ancient religion as fact that is using older mythology and is not verified in any meaningful way?

Appeal to authority fallacy. And your opinion about writers is irrelevant.

Not remotely an appeal to authority fallacy in fact.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

There are no independent sources that do this, only some scant evidence for that someone called Jesus was crucified, everything else is anonymous unevidenced hearsay.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Typical "unevidenced this...unvalidated that".

From one thread to the other.

I'm beginning to think that most of you guys are bots.

Same generic stuff.

Not to mention the fact that you are WRONG anyway, but that aside...

The resurrection is simply an unevidenced appeal to mystery, even if you had signed affidavits from Mary Joseph, each of the disciples, and Pontius Pilate that a body disappeared, it would just get a so what, nothing supernatural is required to explain that, nor would it explain it anyway. as with all such woo woo superstition it has no explanatory powers whatsoever.

I'd rather have this conversation with someone who wants to do more than just argue.

Is there anyone out there who brings more than "there is no evidence" to the table.

Is there anyone out there who has actually looked into the subject matter and examined the argument for the resurrection of Jesus, and can provide well-thought out, substantive critique ?

Is there anyone out there who can bring actual substance to the discussion besides generic, atheistic quips?

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

.

Let me jump in here...see, it is that kind of smugness and defiance which comes from the skeptic that I really enjoy.

Your link does not work. And it does not appear to be a scholarly work at any rate. Do you have anything better? In fact your source tells us that Matthew was not the author of Matthew. Your sources tells us that Matthew wrote a record in Hebrew.

Yeah, and that source is based upon some of the early church leaders.

It isn't as if the claim was pulled out of thin air.

Matthew was originally written in Greek. By a someone classically trained in Greek. That was not Matthew.

First off, you are arguing from ignorance.

You do not know that Matthew was originally written in Greek, because we do not have the original manuscripts to make such a proclamation.

Second, according to the testimony of the early church fathers (some of them), Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew...and I trust their testimony over any so called historians or skeptics who are 2,000+ years removed from the scene.

Third, you do not know if Matthew was trained in Greek.

So, yeah...arguing from ignorance.

Luke's work even tells you that it is not an eyewitness account.

You keep misreading those opening verses. He claims that the stories began with eyewitnesses, but he never claimed to talk to any.

Which is fine, because most historians weren't eyewitnesses to the accounts that they write about.

No, he is not. Again, you used a non-scholarly source. In this case one written by liars for Jesus. Apologetics sites are far from scholarly. His sources still beat yours.

This is the genetic fallacy.

You are dismissing evidence based on its origins (apologetic sites), as if non-apologetic sites have more virtue than apologetic ones.

Not only is this the genetic fallacy, but it is also a non sequitur.

That, followed by the fact that most apologetic sites that I am aware of, are in fact scholarly or at least the writers for the site are knowledgeable about the subject matter that they are discussing.

Honest sources do that. There is no way to be absolutely sure. You use sources that do not own up to the fact that their beliefs are not well supported. They simply declare them to be correct. Once again, your sources are shown to be poor sources when they cannot be honest.

So, if one was to provide you with sources from verified Christian new testament scholars and/or historians, then what?

Would you believe it?

Probably not. You would just move the goal posts further back to keep the skepticism alive.

That is the game.

That would be nice if it were true, but again, Mark was a name attached to that Gospel. And your source misled you. Papias never claimed that the Gospel of Mark was by Mark, or that the Gospel of Matthew was by Matthew. He only said that those two wrote down what they knew.

Well, if they wrote down what they knew, then what they wrote is what they knew.

I see no problems with that. hahaha.

Since neither of them were very likely at all to have been well instructed in classical Greek it is rather dubious that they wrote the books named for them.

And you know that Matthew and Mark were unlikely to have known Greek based on what evidence?

Please, tell me?

Do you understand the difference between someone saying "Mark wrote some records" and "Mark wrote these records"?

"These records" of Mark's Gospel and his authorship, were passed down through the Church history and looked upon as sacred, holy texts.

And we hold those traditions to this day.

Now, that may not be good enough for you, but that is why you are an unbeliever, and we are believers...because we just don't see things the same.

Wikipedia is actually a far better source than the one that you used since when someone puts something in a page there one has to be able to show up that his changes are valid. If not it will quickly be edited by someone that can show that his work is correct by using unbiased historical sources.

From the Wikipedia article on Papias:

On Mark, Papias cites John the Elder:

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai,[note 1] but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

The excerpt regarding Matthew says only:

Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could.[note 2]

How to interpret these quotations from Papias has long been a matter of controversy, as the original context for each is missing and the Greek is in several respects ambiguous and seems to employ technical rhetorical terminology. For one thing, it is not even explicit that the writings by Mark and Matthew are the canonical Gospels bearing those names.

Papias of Hierapolis - Wikipedia

Well, let me put it to you this way...Irenaeus was quoting from Matthew's Gospel as early as the 2nd century (Against Heresies III:17:1) ...and what is interesting about it is, his quotation is of the "Great Commission" (Matt 28:19), and that account is only found in Matthew.

And we know that there was a "Mark" who rolled with the apostles during the rise of the early Christian movement and he is mentioned throughout the book of Acts.

The fact that they attributed Mark's name to a Gospel as an author shows genuiness, as Mark wasn't even one of the original apostles.

Peter or James' name would carry more weight, but no one claimed that either of them wrote a Gospel...but they choose...Mark?

Makes no sense, if it weren't true.

God can use anyone to get his message across, even if it is one of the lowly, lesser known "groupie" named Mark.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.

Let me jump in here...see, it is that kind of smugness and defiance which comes from the skeptic that I really enjoy.



Yeah, and that source is based upon some of the early church leaders.

It isn't as if the claim was pulled out of thin air.

That shows how little you know. I do not make his mistake and use only Liars for Jesus when it comes to backing up claims. If one reads what was actually said by his sources the claims for his beliefs become untenably weak.

First off, you are arguing from ignorance.

You do not know that Matthew was originally written in Greek, because we do not have the original manuscripts to make such a proclamation.

Second, according to the testimony of the early church fathers (some of them), Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew...and I trust their testimony over any so called historians or skeptics who are 2,000+ years removed from the scene.

Third, you do not know if Matthew was trained in Greek.

So, yeah...arguing from ignorance.

I don't know because I am not a scholar. But the scholars that study these matters do know. If you have read enough there are times that you can tell when an article was not written in your own language. Scholars that study the Gospels could also tell that the Gospels were originally written in Greek. Not just one scholar, but example after example of modern scholars share the same belief.

You should never accuse other of being ignorant if you cannot probe that they are ignorant. Instead your claims end up backfiring on you.

Which is fine, because most historians weren't eyewitnesses to the accounts that they write about.

I agree. This shows that you have not been paying attention. The person I was responding to was claiming that Luke based his work on eyewitnesses. His work actually contradicts that.

But it is nice to see you admitting that I am right here.

This is the genetic fallacy.

You are dismissing evidence based on its origins (apologetic sites), as if non-apologetic sites have more virtue than apologetic ones.

Not only is this the genetic fallacy, but it is also a non sequitur.

That, followed by the fact that most apologetic sites that I am aware of, are in fact scholarly or at least the writers for the site are knowledgeable about the subject matter that they are discussing.

No, it is not. To scholars honesty is extremely important. When one can only find sources that are based upon dishonest people it is a very very bad sign for an argument. It means that he is only using an appeal to false authority.

So, if one was to provide you with sources from verified Christian new testament scholars and/or historians, then what?

Would you believe it?

Probably not. You would just move the goal posts further back to keep the skepticism alive.

That is the game.

There are plenty of "verified new testament writers" that have already shown that the claims of these apologists are wrong. One scholar is never very impressive. There is always a good chance that that person could not be honest with himself. Do you realize that probably most of the New Testament scholars that refute the beliefs of those that think Jesus was resurrected were Christians themselves? The became scholars to find more evidence for Jesus. Instead the found evidence against him. Bart Ehrman is a classic case. He was born and raised a Christian and began religious studies to make his faith stronger. In stead he found that they were not true.

And your claim about moving the goalposts probably applies to you. I want to know. You probably just want to believe.

Well, if they wrote down what they knew, then what they wrote is what they knew.

I see no problems with that. hahaha.

It was written by someone more than a generation after Jesus died. Do you really think that myths had not entered the story in that time?

And you know that Matthew and Mark were unlikely to have known Greek based on what evidence?

Please, tell me?

Once again that is the opinion of scholars that have read and understood the Gospels in their original Greek.

Do you have any evidence that they were written in any other language.?

Uneducated men writing in classic Greek with no record of professional training education is evidence that they did not write them. You seem to have a lot of questions and even less knowledge than I have.

"These records" of Mark's Gospel and his authorship, were passed down through the Church history and looked upon as sacred, holy texts.

And we hold those traditions to this day.

Now, that may not be good enough for you, but that is why you are an unbeliever, and we are believers...because we just don't see things the same.

You have no way of knowing that they were of "Mark's authorship". That is the whole point. The church may have kept them safe. That proves nothing about authorship.

Well, let me put it to you this way...Irenaeus was quoting from Matthew's Gospel as early as the 2nd century (Against Heresies III:17:1) ...and what is interesting about it is, his quotation is of the "Great Commission" (Matt 28:19), and that account is only found in Matthew.

And we know that there was a "Mark" who rolled with the apostles during the rise of the early Christian movement and he is mentioned throughout the book of Acts.

The fact that they attributed Mark's name to a Gospel as an author shows genuiness, as Mark wasn't even one of the original apostles.

Oh you have that so backwards. There were many Gospels of that time. The one eventually named after Mark gained authority by giving it the name Mark.

Peter or James' name would carry more weight, but no one claimed that either of them wrote a Gospel...but they choose...Mark?

Makes no sense, if it weren't true.

God can use anyone to get his message across, even if it is one of the lowly, lesser known "groupie" named Mark.

It makes plenty of sense if you think about it without bias.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

That shows how little you know. I do not make his mistake and use only Liars for Jesus when it comes to backing up claims. If one reads what was actually said by his sources the claims for his beliefs become untenably weak.

That is all fine and dandy, but you are dealing with me now.

I don't know because I am not a scholar. But the scholars that study these matters do know.

Yeah, we all have our scholars who support our positions, don't we?

If you have read enough there are times that you can tell when an article was not written in your own language.

Scholars that study the Gospels could also tell that the Gospels were originally written in Greek. Not just one scholar, but example after example of modern scholars share the same belief.

The only way you can tell that the Gospels were originally written in Greek, is if you have the original written-in-Greek manuscripts.

Since we clearly don't have such manuscripts, all you can do is base your assumption off some kind of inference from something else, which I doubt will have more virtue than the actual testimony from the early church which states what the language the book was written in.

Second, not all scholars agree that the books were originally written in Greek (at least Matthew).

You should never accuse other of being ignorant if you cannot probe that they are ignorant. Instead your claims end up backfiring on you.

I did not mean you are ignorant, per se.

The argument from ignorance simply means you are making an argument in spite of a lack of knowledge on the particulars of the subject in question.

And I stand by my assessment.

I agree. This shows that you have not been paying attention. The person I was responding to was claiming that Luke based his work on eyewitnesses. His work actually contradicts that.
But it is nice to see you admitting that I am right here.

Actually, it shows you haven't been paying attention...to Luke.

In his preface, Luke stated that..

1. Many had already took the task of providing an orderly narrative of the account.

2. There were eyewitnesses to the account.

3. And that he himself had also carefully investigated the account and is also giving an account.

So, you are WRONG in saying that his accounts weren't based on eyewitnesses.

No, it is not. To scholars honesty is extremely important. When one can only find sources that are based upon dishonest people it is a very very bad sign for an argument. It means that he is only using an appeal to false authority.

Who is dishonest?

There are plenty of "verified new testament writers" that have already shown that the claims of these apologists are wrong. One scholar is never very impressive. There is always a good chance that that person could not be honest with himself. Do you realize that probably most of the New Testament scholars that refute the beliefs of those that think Jesus was resurrected were Christians themselves? The became scholars to find more evidence for Jesus. Instead the found evidence against him. Bart Ehrman is a classic case. He was born and raised a Christian and began religious studies to make his faith stronger. In stead he found that they were not true.

Which means nothing.

What about all those of whom studied the same stuff Bart studied, and based on their assessment, it STRENGTHENED their faith?

What about those?

And your claim about moving the goalposts probably applies to you. I want to know. You probably just want to believe.

If im wrong, I lose nothing.

If im right, I gain everything.

It was written by someone more than a generation after Jesus died.

Define "generation".

Do you really think that myths had not entered the story in that time?

Nonsense.

Paul's writings predate the Gospels...and according to 1 Corinth 15:3-7, if he was given that creed shortly after his conversion...that is wayyy to early for any myth or legendary stuff to creep in.

The belief in the resurrection was an early belief, not a later one.

Once again that is the opinion of scholars that have read and understood the Gospels in their original Greek.

And they draw that conclusion based on what?

Uneducated men writing in classic Greek with no record of professional training education is evidence that they did not write them.

How do you know that they were uneducated?

Or, are you assuming?

You seem to have a lot of questions and even less knowledge than I have.

You have no way of knowing that they were of "Mark's authorship".

And those scholars that you love so much, have no way of knowing that they weren't of "Mark's authorship".

My case is solely based upon the early church father's testimony...not "scholars" who are 2000+ years removed from the scene.

That is the whole point. The church may have kept them safe. That proves nothing about authorship.

Kept who safe?

Oh you have that so backwards. There were many Gospels of that time. The one eventually named after Mark gained authority by giving it the name Mark.

Since when did Mark have authority? hahaha.

It makes plenty of sense if you think about it without bias.

Can you think about it without bias?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is all fine and dandy, but you are dealing with me now.



Yeah, we all have our scholars who support our positions, don't we?



The only way you can tell that the Gospels were originally written in Greek, is if you have the original written-in-Greek manuscripts.

Since we clearly don't have such manuscripts, all you can do is base your assumption off some kind of inference from something else, which I doubt will have more virtue than the actual testimony from the early church which states what the language the book was written in.

Second, not all scholars agree that the books were originally written in Greek (at least Matthew).



I did not mean you are ignorant, per se.

The argument from ignorance simply means you are making an argument in spite of a lack of knowledge on the particulars of the subject in question.

And I stand by my assessment.



Actually, it shows you haven't been paying attention...to Luke.

In his preface, Luke stated that..

1. Many had already took the task of providing an orderly narrative of the account.

2. There were eyewitnesses to the account.

3. And that he himself had also carefully investigated the account and is also giving an account.

So, you are WRONG in saying that his accounts weren't based on eyewitnesses.



Who is dishonest?



Which means nothing.

What about all those of whom studied the same stuff Bart studied, and based on their assessment, it STRENGTHENED their faith?

What about those?



If im wrong, I lose nothing.

If im right, I gain everything.



Define "generation".



Nonsense.

Paul's writings predate the Gospels...and according to 1 Corinth 15:3-7, if he was given that creed shortly after his conversion...that is wayyy to early for any myth or legendary stuff to creep in.

The belief in the resurrection was an early belief, not a later one.



And they draw that conclusion based on what?



How do you know that they were uneducated?

Or, are you assuming?







And those scholars that you love so much, have no way of knowing that they weren't of "Mark's authorship".

My case is solely based upon the early church father's testimony...not "scholars" who are 2000+ years removed from the scene.



Kept who safe?



Since when did Mark have authority? hahaha.



Can you think about it without bias?

I see all that you have is denial and ignorance. If you want to discuss this let's do it properly. One point at a time.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

I see all that you have is denial and ignorance. If you want to discuss this let's do it properly. One point at a time.

I said all I needed to say, and you've got nothing.

Accept Christ as Lord and Savior, and doing so will not only set you in God's grace in this finite life on Earth..but you are also investing in your infinite future in Heaven.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said all I needed to say, and you've got nothing.

Accept Christ as Lord and Savior, and doing so will not only set you in God's grace in this finite life on Earth..but you are also investing in your infinite future in Heaven.

Nope, you are living in ignorance and fear. You also were projecting massively in your posts. You are the one that has nothing. You were corrected and ignored the corrections. You do not understand the burden of proof or how to use it properly.

That is why I offered to go over this point by point in detail. The one who has "nothing" never does that. The person that has nothing is the one that refuses to discuss one's beliefs rationally.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Nope, you are living in ignorance and fear. You also were projecting massively in your posts. You are the one that has nothing. You were corrected and ignored the corrections. You do not understand the burden of proof or how to use it properly.

That is why I offered to go over this point by point in detail. The one who has "nothing" never does that. The person that has nothing is the one that refuses to discuss one's beliefs rationally.

Ahh, red herrings...no substance.

Gotcha.

Moving along...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ahh, red herrings...no substance.

Gotcha.

Moving along...

Why can't Christians ever use logical fallacies properly?

But run away.

 

[joelr]

Never said "all"... I said Matthew and John. Obviously the writer of Luke is a biography and a compilation of those who were eye witnesses. A deposition of sorts.

The early church is unanimous in their acceptance of Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen all report Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias (c. AD 60-130) writes, “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”
Papias, “Fragments of Papias,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 155.

So you are wrong.

Oh that's hilarious. Did you just source Irenaeus and Justin Martyr? A Bishop and an apologist? I am embarrassed for you.
Irenaeus was not a historian. He also wrote in 180 - 200 CE. Oh, he had a completely different copy of scripture that no longer survives today. He gives examples of scripture that are DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING WE KNOW OF??
Irenaeus also thought Jesus was killed in the 40's and said it was in accordance with prophecy that "King Herod and Caesar's man Pilate would do this:

"For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontias Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned him. to be crucified. For Herod feared , as though Jesus really were to be an earthly king, lest he should be expelled from the kingdom. But Pilate was constrained by Herod and the Jews that were with him against his will to deliver him to death, if he should not rather do this, than act contrary to Caesar by letting go a man who was called king"

This corresponds to no known Gospel. His Psalms is also different.

Why did he think Matthew was first?

"The early patristic scholars regarded Matthew as the earliest of the gospels and placed it first in the canon, and the early Church mostly quoted from Matthew, secondarily from John, and only distantly from Mark.["

Now with the advantage of seeing all the information there are no historians who think Matthew was first and none who think Matthew didn't rely on Mark.

"The work does not identify its author, and the early tradition attributing it to the apostle Matthew is rejected by modern scholars."
"Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek", he drew on the Gospel of Mark ..."

"The traditional attribution to the apostle Matthew, first attested by Papias of Hierapolis (attestation dated c. 125 AD),[18] is rejected by modern scholars,[13][14] and the majority view today is that the author was an anonymous male Jew writing in the last quarter of the 1st century familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture, and standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values.[19][15][note 2] The majority also believe that Mark was the first gospel to be composed and that Matthew (who includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses) and Luke both drew upon it as a major source for their works.[20][21]"

I've already given so many scholars to your zero so this has just become facts vs fundamentalist nonsense.
I thought you were going to make some sort of argument. Not revert back (ignoring all the arguments for the Synoptic Problem as if they didn't exist as well as the entire modern historicity field) to the 2nd century apologetics that Matthew was first?


You haven't debunked any of the 5 scholars I used. But ending with "so you're wrong" because of Irenaeus has debunked your debate skills for sure.

John

Irenaeus ....

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 AD), as quoted by the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263-339 AD) denotes the following:

Again, in the same books Clement has set down a tradition which he had received from the elders before him, in regard to the order of the Gospels, to the following effect. He says that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed in the following circumstances:—

Peter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, inasmuch as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter’s knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged. But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel

Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “The Martyrdom of Ignatius,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 130.

And, again, you are wrong.

1885???? Clement of Alexandria????? I pointed out that modern theologians are not versed in historical knowledge and begin by assuming the scripture they believe in is real. So your answer is to use ancient theologians? Even worse, a theologian who holds all sorts of non-biblical theologies?

And that makes all modern scholarship wrong???? Wow. The creation museum would be proud.

I love the words like "probably" which means they aren't sure and then talk like they are right. And, again, I have already shown that the statements are wrong as far "none were eyewitness while they use the word "almost" certainly.

I prefer a "dates between" approach which would be more honest.

Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.
Mark between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.
Luke was written before A.D. 62
John appears to have been written in the ’80s to ’90s.

When were the gospels written and by whom?

Mark, of course, wrote down what Peter said who was an eye-witness.

Oh my God. It can't get worse right? It did. From ancient theologians to apologetics.

"Matt Slick is President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry."

Cool story bro. So which historian backs the early dating? None.

The strawman issue with dates is, well a strawman -

"The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8] Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources.[9][10] "

more scholars, blah blah. if you are resorting to apologetic fundamentalism you don't need scholars. The truth is no longer important to you.

Oh, you did NOT answer to any issues raised with Matthew by a NT historian except to say "Irenaeus"?

So, what you are saying is that even though there are million of eyewitnesses to Mohammad, he never existed... got it.

How did you miss this? I'm saying there were eyewitnesses to Muhammad speaking with an angel and witnesses to some miracles by Allah.

But let's not leave out your other source Justin Martyr. Mr "Satan did it to fool you" himself.

So your source, who is an apologist, admits that Jesus is a Greek demigod.

"“Be well assured, then, Trypho,” I continued, “that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks;"

He just adds that Satan went back in time to make all the Greek religions sound just like Jesus to fool Christians. Ok. OR......it's syncretic mythology because that's what all religion is?


Saint Justin Martyr (110-165)

Dialogue with Trypho

Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson

Chapter 69

For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter’s] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, ‘strong as a giant to run his race,’ has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Æsculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? But since I have not quoted to you such Scripture as tells that Christ will do these things, I must necessarily remind you of one such: from which you can understand, how that to those destitute of a knowledge of God, I mean the Gentiles, who, ‘having eyes, saw not, and having a heart, understood not,’ worshipping the images of wood, [how even to them] Scripture prophesied that they would renounce these [vanities], and hope in this Christ. I

 

[joelr]

That is all fine and dandy, but you are dealing with me now.
Yeah, we all have our scholars who support our positions, don't we?

The vast majority of historians who specialize in Biblical studies do not consider the Gospels to be anything except a mythology created from Greek/Persian theology.


Dr Carrier:
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves.
Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier

Actually, it shows you haven't been paying attention...to Luke.

In his preface, Luke stated that..

1. Many had already took the task of providing an orderly narrative of the account.

2. There were eyewitnesses to the account.

3. And that he himself had also carefully investigated the account and is also giving an account.

So, you are WRONG in saying that his accounts weren't based on eyewitnesses.

Luke is not a historian. Again, Carrier
"So we know Luke is making a lot of things up in order to deliberately sell a fake history, for purposes of winning an argument against doubters (both within and without Christianity, as his opponents included, for example, Christians with very different ideas about the nature of the resurrection).
This already warns us not to trust anything he has added to the story found in Mark and Matthew: we should assume it is, like those, a convenient fabrication invented for some purpose, unless we can find sufficient evidence to believe otherwise. .....
despite his pretense at being a historian, preface and all, Luke's methods are demonstrably nonhistorical: he is not doing research, weighing facts, checking them against independent sources, and writing down what he thinks most likely happened.He is simply producing an expanded and redacted literary hybird of a couple of previous religious novels (Matthew and Mark), each itself even more obviously constructed according to literary conventions rather than historiographical.
Unlike other historians of even his own era, Luke never names his sources or explains why we are to trust them (or why he did), or how he chose what to include or exclude. In fact Luke does not even declare any critical method at all, but rather insists he slavishly followed what was handed to him - yet another claim we know to be a lie (since we have two of his sources and can confirm he freely altered then to suit his own agenda)."

What about all those of whom studied the same stuff Bart studied, and based on their assessment, it STRENGTHENED their faith?

What about those?

Most became secular. I know of zero historians who are fundamentalists. If there are any they are not part of the consensus because I have never seen a peer-reviewed paper arguing fundamentalist beliefs.

If im wrong, I lose nothing.

If im right, I gain everything.

Pascals Wager. Debunked. I can say the same about every version of the underworld and religion. Allah sounds pretty scary. Yet you are not worried.

Define "generation".

In Biblical times the average life span was 38 yeras.

 

[joelr]

Nonsense.

Paul's writings predate the Gospels...and according to 1 Corinth 15:3-7, if he was given that creed shortly after his conversion...that is wayyy to early for any myth or legendary stuff to creep in.

The belief in the resurrection was an early belief, not a later one.

Jesus is a Hellenistic savior deity. Resurrection is from Persian theology. During the 2nd Temple Period both cultures occupied Israel and their theology was borrowed by Hebrew thinkers.

"Historically, the unique features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5] messianism, belief in free will and judgement after death, conception of heaven, hell, angels, and demons, among other concepts, may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including the Abrahamic religions "

This is from Mary Boyce's work on the Persian religion. Revelations was originally a Persian myth (~1600 B.C.) and was used by Judaism.

"Arising initially in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation.[1][4][5][6][7]"
Apocalypticism - Wikipedia

This is also from Boyce's book on Zoroastrianism,

"
Revelations


but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.

Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which

there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07)."


resurrecting savior deities, baptism, salvation, heaven, souls going to heaven and so on are all Hellenistic ideas from Greek religions who occupied Israel 1 century before Christianity even started.
Carrier gives original sources for several pre-Jesus deities
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

Sanders and Wright on Greek theology blending into early Jewish thought

"
During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]

"

And those scholars that you love so much, have no way of knowing that they weren't of "Mark's authorship".

My case is solely based upon the early church father's testimony...not "scholars" who are 2000+ years removed from the scene.

Modern scholars have the advantage of seeing the larger picture. Biblical historicity didn't start until fairly recently. There were just theologians who assumed it was the word of God. The church downplayed connections to other religions. 2nd century apologists admitted Jesus was like all Greek demigods only because Satan made it look that way to fool Christians. I quoted Justin Maryter saying this above.
We didn't know the OT was all Mesopotamian mythology until modern times -

The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.


Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.



Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.

The only way you can tell that the Gospels were originally written in Greek, is if you have the original written-in-Greek manuscripts.

Since we clearly don't have such manuscripts, all you can do is base your assumption off some kind of inference from something else, which I doubt will have more virtue than the actual testimony from the early church which states what the language the book was written in.

Second, not all scholars agree that the books were originally written in Greek (at least Matthew).

Matthew copied 97% of Mark into his Gospel. All historians say there is more than enough evidence that they were all written in Greek. But there was no early church. Christianity was at least 50% Gnostic with all sorts of different theologies.

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org
evidence Matthew copied Mark (in Greek)

 

[joelr]

.

Let me jump in here...see, it is that kind of smugness and defiance which comes from the skeptic that I really enjoy.



Yeah, and that source is based upon some of the early church leaders.

It isn't as if the claim was pulled out of thin air.



First off, you are arguing from ignorance.

You do not know that Matthew was originally written in Greek, because we do not have the original manuscripts to make such a proclamation.

Church leaders? A Priest? Not a historian. Irenaeus had a different copy of the Bible than we have and studied theology. Not comparative religion or studies on "is this even true"? He's writing from 180-200 C.E.

It isn't an argument from ignorance? all modern historians that I have seen are confident that the Gospels were written first in Greek. The people who's job it is to find out these things.
Is there one who disagrees? I don't know so maybe you can share that?


Your source does have some great scholarly and scientific methods at least -

Irenaeus of Lyons went further, stating that there must be four gospels and only four because there were four corners of the Earth and thus the Church should have four pillars.




"Like the rest of the New Testament, the four canonical gospels were written in Greek.[30]"
Porter, Stanley E. (2006). "Language and Translation of the New Testament". In Rogerson, J.W.; Lieu, Judith M. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. Oxford University Press.

 

[Kenny]

Oh that's hilarious. Did you just source Irenaeus and Justin Martyr? A Bishop and an apologist? I am embarrassed for you.
Irenaeus was not a historian. He also wrote in 180 - 200 CE. Oh, he had a completely different copy of scripture that no longer survives today. He gives examples of scripture that are DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING WE KNOW OF??
Irenaeus also thought Jesus was killed in the 40's and said it was in accordance with prophecy that "King Herod and Caesar's man Pilate would do this:

"For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontias Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned him. to be crucified. For Herod feared , as though Jesus really were to be an earthly king, lest he should be expelled from the kingdom. But Pilate was constrained by Herod and the Jews that were with him against his will to deliver him to death, if he should not rather do this, than act contrary to Caesar by letting go a man who was called king"

This corresponds to no known Gospel. His Psalms is also different.

Why did he think Matthew was first?

"The early patristic scholars regarded Matthew as the earliest of the gospels and placed it first in the canon, and the early Church mostly quoted from Matthew, secondarily from John, and only distantly from Mark.["

Now with the advantage of seeing all the information there are no historians who think Matthew was first and none who think Matthew didn't rely on Mark.

"The work does not identify its author, and the early tradition attributing it to the apostle Matthew is rejected by modern scholars."
"Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek", he drew on the Gospel of Mark ..."

"The traditional attribution to the apostle Matthew, first attested by Papias of Hierapolis (attestation dated c. 125 AD),[18] is rejected by modern scholars,[13][14] and the majority view today is that the author was an anonymous male Jew writing in the last quarter of the 1st century familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture, and standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values.[19][15][note 2] The majority also believe that Mark was the first gospel to be composed and that Matthew (who includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses) and Luke both drew upon it as a major source for their works.[20][21]"

I've already given so many scholars to your zero so this has just become facts vs fundamentalist nonsense.
I thought you were going to make some sort of argument. Not revert back (ignoring all the arguments for the Synoptic Problem as if they didn't exist as well as the entire modern historicity field) to the 2nd century apologetics that Matthew was first?


You haven't debunked any of the 5 scholars I used. But ending with "so you're wrong" because of Irenaeus has debunked your debate skills for sure.




1885???? Clement of Alexandria????? I pointed out that modern theologians are not versed in historical knowledge and begin by assuming the scripture they believe in is real. So your answer is to use ancient theologians? Even worse, a theologian who holds all sorts of non-biblical theologies?

And that makes all modern scholarship wrong???? Wow. The creation museum would be proud.





Oh my God. It can't get worse right? It did. From ancient theologians to apologetics.

"Matt Slick is President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry."

Cool story bro. So which historian backs the early dating? None.

The strawman issue with dates is, well a strawman -

"The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8] Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources.[9][10] "

more scholars, blah blah. if you are resorting to apologetic fundamentalism you don't need scholars. The truth is no longer important to you.

Oh, you did NOT answer to any issues raised with Matthew by a NT historian except to say "Irenaeus"?





How did you miss this? I'm saying there were eyewitnesses to Muhammad speaking with an angel and witnesses to some miracles by Allah.

But let's not leave out your other source Justin Martyr. Mr "Satan did it to fool you" himself.

So your source, who is an apologist, admits that Jesus is a Greek demigod.

"“Be well assured, then, Trypho,” I continued, “that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks;"

He just adds that Satan went back in time to make all the Greek religions sound just like Jesus to fool Christians. Ok. OR......it's syncretic mythology because that's what all religion is?


Saint Justin Martyr (110-165)

Dialogue with Trypho

Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson

Chapter 69

For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter’s] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, ‘strong as a giant to run his race,’ has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Æsculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? But since I have not quoted to you such Scripture as tells that Christ will do these things, I must necessarily remind you of one such: from which you can understand, how that to those destitute of a knowledge of God, I mean the Gentiles, who, ‘having eyes, saw not, and having a heart, understood not,’ worshipping the images of wood, [how even to them] Scripture prophesied that they would renounce these [vanities], and hope in this Christ. I

So, basically speaking, you simply choose modern liberal scholars to those that were closest to the event.

Next you will be saying "Modern youth believe that the Holocaust was a ruse therefore it was".

You didn't debunk my position and until you do, you are on a faulty foundation no matter how you flower it with an abundance of words and analogies.

 

[Kenny]

.

That shows how little you know. I do not make his mistake and use only Liars for Jesus when it comes to backing up claims. If one reads what was actually said by his sources the claims for his beliefs become untenably weak.

Actually you showed that you were indeed making statements out of ignorance. (As he mentioned)

You really don't know if it was originally in Greek. Irenaeus actually makes evidence of a Hebraic Matthew.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Why can't Christians ever use logical fallacies properly?

But run away.

A red herring is when you are sidetracking or distracting away from the issue...which is exactly what you've done in the post that I responded to.

So, the fallacy was properly rendered, and it currently stands.