The testimony of the NT writers

[Kenny]

You are on a discussion forum making hollow claims about Matthew being a witness, among others, that you refuse to support. What do you expect, that people on this forum with even a modicum of critical thought will believe a word you say?

I expect people to refute a little better than what has been shown at this time

 

[Kenny]

How about addressing the point instead of ignoring it and waving it away, as you've done here?

Because he has shown himself not to be relevant

You jumping in at the last moment without all the history and making a deduction that is not based on evidence isn’t proper logic

 

[Subduction Zone]

I expect people to refute a little better than what has been shown at this time

Why would you expect people to put more work into a refutation than needed? That would be overdoing it if you ask me.

And a helpful hint, if you want people to put more work into their refutation, put more work into your claims. You make it too easy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because he has shown himself not to be relevant

You jumping in at the last moment without all the history and making a deduction that is not based on evidence isn’t proper logic

No, that is you. You had no answer to the refutation except to keep admitting that you were wrong. Linking failed arguments is simply giving up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because he has shown himself not to be relevant

You jumping in at the last moment without all the history and making a deduction that is not based on evidence isn’t proper logic

It's a very valid point. One that you have yet to address.

I don't need a lecture about proper logic that you yourself haven't used. What I need from you is to actually address the very valid point about copying, word for word.

 

[lukethethird]

I expect people to refute a little better than what has been shown at this time

I am not refuting anything, I am asking you to support your claim that Matthew was a witness.

 

[Kenny]

It's a very valid point. One that you have yet to address.

I don't need a lecture about proper logic that you yourself haven't used. What I need from you is to actually address the very valid point about copying, word for word.

You will have to go back and explain exactly what you are asking for.

 

[Kenny]

I am not refuting anything, I am asking you to support your claim that Matthew was a witness.

As I said, I have covered those points ad-nauseam. I am not trying to have you believe as I do but you all haven't expressed any viewpoint that invalidates mine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, I have covered those points ad-nauseam. I am not trying to have you believe as I do but you all haven't expressed any viewpoint that invalidates mine.

Using apologetics sites is not "covering them". Muslims may have such sites. I have not found them, or them may be more subtle in their uses of statements of faith. If a Muslim had a site refuting your beliefs where anyone that published there had to agree that the Quran was the word of God would you accept that as evidence for a Christian event and their site went against what history says?

I am trying to see if you can use critical reasoning. If you can see when someone else is not using critical reasoning against you you might be able to see how you failed.

By the way, you can use those sites for ideas, but since they are not sources. They clearly do not care about the history themselves. They probably get some history right. You might even be able to make a valid point if you find a historical source rather than a Christian source.

 

[Kenny]

Using apologetics sites is not "covering them".

Fallacy. You are shooting the messenger instead of refuting the information.

 

[lukethethird]

As I said, I have covered those points ad-nauseam. I am not trying to have you believe as I do but you all haven't expressed any viewpoint that invalidates mine.

You have stated that Matthew was there, ad nauseam, but you never showed how you know that. But that's fine, I understand it's a faith belief of yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fallacy. You are shooting the messenger instead of refuting the information.

That is not true. The demand was for sources that were based upon history. You did not use such a source. You may not know this but history has their own peer review too. Beliefs that are just based upon religion do not qualify as history. By showing you the statement of faith your source was shown to be not based upon history and terminally biased.

The problem is that you are using a logical fallacy when you use that site. You are using an appeal to false authority:

"Appeal to false authority
For example, you might claim that your older sister, who holds a master’s in literature, said it’s perfectly fine to use MLA format for your lab report. This is an appeal to false authority. Your sister might hold an advanced degree, but as a literature student, it’s likely she never or rarely used APA format. Therefore, she’s not an expert on the kind of formatting that’s required in science courses.

Another name for the appeal to false authority fallacy is an appeal to unqualified authority."

Your experts are not experts in history. That is why your source fails. It may be true. But for an argument they clearly do not qualify as a source.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy: Definition and Examples.

An extreme example of it would be to say "I know what is wrong with my car, the carburetor is acting up, Steve told me and he is a doctor!" Well Steve being a doctor does not mean squat when talking about car engines. And an apologist site that claims something happened in history is of no use to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have stated that Matthew was there, ad nauseam, but you never showed how you know that. But that's fine, I understand it's a faith belief of yours.

It is fine to hold faith based beliefs. The problem arises when one tries to claim that they are real. I am perfectly happy believing in my infrared blue dragon in my garage. I might run into some resistance if I try to make laws based upon what my dragon tells me.

 

[Kenny]

You have stated that Matthew was there, ad nauseam, but you never showed how you know that. But that's fine, I understand it's a faith belief of yours.

For you. The way I came to the conclusion (you don't have to agree) is by the following:

1. Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 160–225; Against Marcion 4.2.1–2):
“I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospel have the apostles for their authors, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by the Lord himself. . . . In short, from among the apostles, John and Matthew implant in us the faith, while from among the apostolic men Luke and Mark reaffirm it.”

2. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130–200; Against Heresies 3.1.1–2; cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History5.8.1–4):
“So Matthew brought out a written gospel among the Jews in their own style, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the church. But after their demise Mark himself, the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke, the follower of Paul, set forth in a book the gospel that was proclaimed by him. Later John, the disciple of the Lord and the one who leaned against his chest, also put out a Gospel while residing in Ephesus of Asia.”

3. Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 125 AD, Recorded in Eusebius 3.39)
“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”

4. The earliest manuscript bearing the title "according to Matthew" is very likely P64/67 (these fragments are usually considered part of the same original manuscript).

5. Patristic citation - The earliest statement that is 100% unambiguous on this matter comes from Irenaeus of Lyons, writing approx. AD 180. He attributes the Gospel of Matthew to Matthew, quotes repeatedly from the document, (see Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1)

6. Origen said the first gospel was written by Matthew in Hebrew. (HE 6.25.4) Eusebius of Caesarea, History Ecclesiastica.

7/ Eusebius — Matthew had first preached to Hebrews and wrote in their own language (HE 3.24.6)

There are internal evidences that also support but it is by viewpoints.

 

[Kenny]

That is not true.

Yes it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes it is.

Of course you screwed up. Why did you edit my post? Obviously you had no answer to the argument. Or maybe you forgot. Yes, that sort of an answer would not be very honest if you remembered what the post said. So here it is again for you:

That is not true. The demand was for sources that were based upon history. You did not use such a source. You may not know this but history has their own peer review too. Beliefs that are just based upon religion do not qualify as history. By showing you the statement of faith your source was shown to be not based upon history and terminally biased.

The problem is that you are using a logical fallacy when you use that site. You are using an appeal to false authority:

"Appeal to false authority
For example, you might claim that your older sister, who holds a master’s in literature, said it’s perfectly fine to use MLA format for your lab report. This is an appeal to false authority. Your sister might hold an advanced degree, but as a literature student, it’s likely she never or rarely used APA format. Therefore, she’s not an expert on the kind of formatting that’s required in science courses.

Another name for the appeal to false authority fallacy is an appeal to unqualified authority."

Your experts are not experts in history. That is why your source fails. It may be true. But for an argument they clearly do not qualify as a source.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy: Definition and Examples.

An extreme example of it would be to say "I know what is wrong with my car, the carburetor is acting up, Steve told me and he is a doctor!" Well Steve being a doctor does not mean squat when talking about car engines. And an apologist site that claims something happened in history is of no use to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For you. The way I came to the conclusion (you don't have to agree) is by the following:

1. Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 160–225; Against Marcion 4.2.1–2):
“I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospel have the apostles for their authors, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by the Lord himself. . . . In short, from among the apostles, John and Matthew implant in us the faith, while from among the apostolic men Luke and Mark reaffirm it.”

2. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130–200; Against Heresies 3.1.1–2; cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History5.8.1–4):
“So Matthew brought out a written gospel among the Jews in their own style, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the church. But after their demise Mark himself, the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke, the follower of Paul, set forth in a book the gospel that was proclaimed by him. Later John, the disciple of the Lord and the one who leaned against his chest, also put out a Gospel while residing in Ephesus of Asia.”

3. Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 125 AD, Recorded in Eusebius 3.39)
“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”

4. The earliest manuscript bearing the title "according to Matthew" is very likely P64/67 (these fragments are usually considered part of the same original manuscript).

5. Patristic citation - The earliest statement that is 100% unambiguous on this matter comes from Irenaeus of Lyons, writing approx. AD 180. He attributes the Gospel of Matthew to Matthew, quotes repeatedly from the document, (see Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1)

6. Origen said the first gospel was written by Matthew in Hebrew. (HE 6.25.4) Eusebius of Caesarea, History Ecclesiastica.

7/ Eusebius — Matthew had first preached to Hebrews and wrote in their own language (HE 3.24.6)

There are internal evidences that also support but it is by viewpoints.

Your "earliest" unlinked source is still about 50 years or two generations after the Gospel of Matthew was written. Why should anyone believe any of them?

And even worse yet it says that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Linguists will tell you that Matthew was originally written in Greek. You claimed to be bilingual. You should know that translated works read differently than works written in the original language.

Here let me quote:

" Some have claimed that by "Hebrew" Papias would have meant Aramaic, the common language of the Middle East beside koine Greek.[4] A 2014 survey of contemporary texts asserts that "Hebraïdi" meant Hebrew and never Aramaic.[5] Nevertheless, Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."[2] "

Hebrew Gospel hypothesis - Wikipedia

Huh! What is that blue 2 doing inside of square brackets? Oh yes, I keep forgetting, to edit Wikipedia articles one needs to provide valid sources. Let's follow that 2 down, shall we?

It's the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume III K-P and here is a link to the page that came from:

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume III

It is a bit tedious since the work does not lend itself to being copied and pasted, but I can type out by hand a direct quote from it.

 

[lukethethird]

For you. The way I came to the conclusion (you don't have to agree) is by the following:

1. Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 160–225; Against Marcion 4.2.1–2):
“I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospel have the apostles for their authors, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by the Lord himself. . . . In short, from among the apostles, John and Matthew implant in us the faith, while from among the apostolic men Luke and Mark reaffirm it.”

2. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130–200; Against Heresies 3.1.1–2; cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History5.8.1–4):
“So Matthew brought out a written gospel among the Jews in their own style, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the church. But after their demise Mark himself, the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke, the follower of Paul, set forth in a book the gospel that was proclaimed by him. Later John, the disciple of the Lord and the one who leaned against his chest, also put out a Gospel while residing in Ephesus of Asia.”

3. Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 125 AD, Recorded in Eusebius 3.39)
“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”

4. The earliest manuscript bearing the title "according to Matthew" is very likely P64/67 (these fragments are usually considered part of the same original manuscript).

5. Patristic citation - The earliest statement that is 100% unambiguous on this matter comes from Irenaeus of Lyons, writing approx. AD 180. He attributes the Gospel of Matthew to Matthew, quotes repeatedly from the document, (see Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1)

6. Origen said the first gospel was written by Matthew in Hebrew. (HE 6.25.4) Eusebius of Caesarea, History Ecclesiastica.

7/ Eusebius — Matthew had first preached to Hebrews and wrote in their own language (HE 3.24.6)

There are internal evidences that also support but it is by viewpoints.

These are faith declarations made by Christian apologists that we are trying to show to be true but can't. Tertullian and Irenaeus are writing at the time that these names were assigned to the gospels, prior to their writing, the gospels were anonymous and are still considered anonymous by literary scholars. They simply make declarations in the late second century without giving any indication as to how they came about this information. No different than Christian apologists making these same faith claims today, just an echo chamber.

Mark as an author proves unlikely considering how the gospel portrays the disciples, Peter, James, and John, as somewhat dim, Jesus gets frustrated with them for not understanding his message, and if that isn't bad enough, Peter abandons and denies Jesus at his time of need, suffice to say, such an unflattering portrayal of Peter proves rather improbable considering the author is supposed to be an acquaintance and writing down Peter's side of the story.

Does it make sense that Luke, a supposed partner of Paul, was an author of a gospel about Jesus after considering the fact that Paul claimed never to have met Jesus?

Papias raises far more questions than it answers. You can read what Subduction Zone says about that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, history of Rome is interesting but I am not well educated on the subject other than my own self re-education. When it comes to history in general I find a need to re-educate myself. Thank goodness for all the information we now have at our fingertips.

I notice some sites, including wikipedia, make decisions that are simply decisions, not necessarily true. So one must be aware. It's similar to the ideas about evolution, including dates. Assertions are made but -- (many buts)...you know like, but but but.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your "earliest" unlinked source is still about 50 years or two generations after the Gospel of Matthew was written. Why should anyone believe any of them?

Here the situation is: do you believe Jesus (or someone like Jesus considered to be a savior or messiah or very special person) lived around the 1st century. CE. If you believe the writers made the whole thing up, that's hard for me to consider that for a couple of reasons. One is that there are accounts of torture (lions killing Christians thrown into an arena), burning of Rome out of fear of Christians and the eventual establishment of the religion with which Constantine was controversially involved with later on.
(I'll get back to the details about Herod later -- it requires time and concentration.)