If there is a Heaven, I'll be there.[W:417]

[veritas1]

What they were alleged to have believed that they witnessed. Nobody is claiming that Marco Polo had magic powers and rose from being dead. Jesus could have been in a coma. That is a far more likely explanation. We won't go into being impregnated by a ghost.

Yea, because lots of people the Romans crucified fell into comas and got out of their tombs days later.:lol:

 

[zyzygy]

Yea, because lots of people the Romans crucified fell into comas and got out of their tombs days later.:lol:

That is merely a story in the bible.It is not history. It is not even an original story.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/774752/JESUS-prior-religions-CONTROL-the-people-roman

 

[veritas1]

Well, for one, when other people went there, the things he described in his book were accurate, so we had independent confirmation about the information he presented.

Yet, nobody was going to kill Marco Polo for insisting he went to China and therein lies the difference. Marco Polo could make up a story about going to China without much more harm than being called a charlatan. The first Christians knew they'd be greatly persecuted at best and, most likely, killed. There was no reason whatever for them to make up Christianity.

 

[veritas1]

That is merely a story in the bible.It is not history. It is not even an original story.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/774752/JESUS-prior-religions-CONTROL-the-people-roman

Please, if you want to be taken seriously, don't link to idiotic nonsense. This is really hilarious. The Christian movement was a great inconvenience to the Romans and was considered by them as just another collection of religious zealots, although a particularly troublesome one. That's why they made a great show of persecuting them. They already had enough trouble controlling the Jews, whom they considered a bother. That they made up the "hoax" of Jesus' resurrection is comically stupid.

 

[zyzygy]

Please, if you want to be taken seriously, don't link to idiotic nonsense. This is really hilarious. The Christian movement was a great inconvenience to the Romans and was considered by them as just another collection of religious zealots, although a particularly troublesome one. That's why they made a great show of persecuting them. They already had enough trouble controlling the Jews, whom they considered a bother. That they made up the "hoax" of Jesus' resurrection is comically stupid.

The story of the magic Jesus is idiotic nonsense.

 

[iguanaman]

Are you guys really ignorant of the whole Fall of Man concept, or are you just feigning ignorance?

There was no "fall of man". Man did not come from the Garden of Eden and women did not come from a rib either. We know how man evolved from ape-like creatures. The whole story is nothing but a fairy tale and original sin is but a ploy to confuse you. Each person chooses to do good or evil on their own.

 

[veritas1]

The story of the magic Jesus is idiotic nonsense.

Great, then stop worrying yourself over it to the point that you have to dredge up pseudo-intellectual rubbish to bolster your argument.

 

[iguanaman]

Yet, nobody was going to kill Marco Polo for insisting he went to China and therein lies the difference. Marco Polo could make up a story about going to China without much more harm than being called a charlatan. The first Christians knew they'd be greatly persecuted at best and, most likely, killed. There was no reason whatever for them to make up Christianity.

LOL No reason? I suppose there is no reason for any of the empires that men have created either. History has told us that Man will always attempt to control and create power over others. The Romans persecuted anyone handy for that very purpose. Later they realized that Christianity had become a source of power and adopted it themselves.

 

[veritas1]

LOL No reason? I suppose there is no reason for any of the empires that men have created either. History has told us that Man will always attempt to control and create power over others. The Romans persecuted anyone handy for that very purpose. Later they realized that Christianity had become a source of power and adopted it themselves.

The first Christians had no reason to make up Christianity and any suggestion that they benefited from it is nonsensical. It took 200 years before the Romans adopted Christianity and they only did that because they could not stop its growth and influence.

 

[RAMOSS]

Yet, nobody was going to kill Marco Polo for insisting he went to China and therein lies the difference. Marco Polo could make up a story about going to China without much more harm than being called a charlatan. The first Christians knew they'd be greatly persecuted at best and, most likely, killed. There was no reason whatever for them to make up Christianity.

Of course, when it comes to Roman's killing Jewish people, during that period of time in the early part of the 1st century, over 20,000 Jews were crucified. So, a lot of people were killed by the Roman empire in Judah just because.

 

[veritas1]

Of course, when it comes to Roman's killing Jewish people, during that period of time in the early part of the 1st century, over 20,000 Jews were crucified. So, a lot of people were killed by the Roman empire in Judah just because.

All the more reason why starting a disruptive religion would gain its adherents nothing.

 

[RAMOSS]

All the more reason why starting a disruptive religion would gain its adherents nothing.

On the other hand, he might not have been trying to start a disruptive religion. We only have the word of people writing after his death who never knew him.

 

[Angel]

There was no "fall of man". Man did not come from the Garden of Eden and women did not come from a rib either. We know how man evolved from ape-like creatures. The whole story is nothing but a fairy tale and original sin is but a ploy to confuse you. Each person chooses to do good or evil on their own.

Man's evolution from an ape is the fairy tale. The fallenness of Man is a profound insight into the human condition.

 

[Daisy]

On the other hand, he might not have been trying to start a disruptive religion. We only have the word of people writing after his death who never knew him.

Um wrong again...Matthew knew Jesus...

"Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household." Matt. 10:34,35

 

[iguanaman]

Man's evolution from an ape is the fairy tale. The fallenness of Man is a profound insight into the human condition.

Our genetic make-up proves you wrong. We have evolved on Earth like every other living thing. You are missing so much by not being a part of it. Believing you were poofed here deprives you of a home. Don't waste your life as a outsider in your own land. Your bond with the rest of life on Earth gives meaning to your existence. Don't reject it.

 

[RAMOSS]

Um wrong again...Matthew knew Jesus...

"Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household." Matt. 10:34,35

There is no evidence that the person who wrote the Gospel of Mathew was the apostle Mathew. Indeed. the language of it shows that it was written later, by someone writing in Greek.

From Gospel of Matthew

It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.

Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):

This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry.

There are other theologians cited on that page too There are strong indications that the author lived in Antioch, not Judah. .. so, no, the book we know as the "Gospel of Matthew" was not written by the apostle Matthew.

 

[Daisy]

There is no evidence that the person who wrote the Gospel of Mathew was the apostle Mathew. Indeed. the language of it shows that it was written later, by someone writing in Greek.

From Gospel of Matthew



There are other theologians cited on that page too There are strong indications that the author lived in Antioch, not Judah. .. so, no, the book we know as the "Gospel of Matthew" was not written by the apostle Matthew.

That is your tale...I sit on mine...:roll:

 

[RAMOSS]

That is your tale...I sit on mine...:roll:

Well, at least you get padding from your tale.

However, the consensus, based on the preponderance of evidence , is that the Gospel of Matthew was written by a Christian of Jewish heritage after 80 c.e. in Antioch. And it is based on, you know, evidence.

 

[Daisy]

Well, at least you get padding from your tale.

However, the consensus, based on the preponderance of evidence , is that the Gospel of Matthew was written by a Christian of Jewish heritage after 80 c.e. in Antioch. And it is based on, you know, evidence.

Time of Writing. Subscriptions, appearing at the end of Matthew’s Gospel in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the tenth century C.E.), say that the account was written about the eighth year after Christ’s ascension (c. 41 C.E.). This would not be at variance with internal evidence. The fact that no reference is made to the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy respecting Jerusalem’s destruction would point to a time of composition prior to 70 C.E. (Mt 5:35; 24:16) And the expression “to this very day” (27:8; 28:15) indicates a lapse of some time between the events considered and the time of writing.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002939

 

[devildavid]

Man's evolution from an ape is the fairy tale. The fallenness of Man is a profound insight into the human condition.

He said ape-like. Man and apes descended from a common ancestor. Man did not fall, whatever that means.

 

[devildavid]

All the more reason why starting a disruptive religion would gain its adherents nothing.

You mistakenly think that human behavior always has to necessarily make some kind of perfect logical sense. Irrational behavior happens with great frequency. Your attempted proof of the truth of religion based on human behavior is not valid.

 

[RAMOSS]

Time of Writing. Subscriptions, appearing at the end of Matthew’s Gospel in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the tenth century C.E.), say that the account was written about the eighth year after Christ’s ascension (c. 41 C.E.). This would not be at variance with internal evidence. The fact that no reference is made to the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy respecting Jerusalem’s destruction would point to a time of composition prior to 70 C.E. (Mt 5:35; 24:16) And the expression “to this very day” (27:8; 28:15) indicates a lapse of some time between the events considered and the time of writing.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002939

There are good reasons to think that the JW's are vastly wrong on this. For example, it's assuming the Jerusalem's descruction is a prophecy, rather than an after the fact rewrite.

Among the items that point to a later writing is the use of the term 'their' synagogue, and a very strong anti-Jewish theme. The language being used towards the Jews would indicate this probably occurred the Christians were not allowed to worship with the Jewish congregations anymore, which happened in 85 C.E. There are external references to some of the passages in the GOM, which puts the late date of it's being written at 110 C.E.. so the best estimate for it's date of authorship is between 85 C.E. and 110 C.E.

That is from the internal evidence of the writings itself, rather than the wishful thinking tradition from 1000 years later.

 

[Angel]

Our genetic make-up proves you wrong. We have evolved on Earth like every other living thing. You are missing so much by not being a part of it. Believing you were poofed here deprives you of a home. Don't waste your life as a outsider in your own land. Your bond with the rest of life on Earth gives meaning to your existence. Don't reject it.

I do not reject my bond with the rest of life; on the contrary, I glorify it. Our genetic make-up proves me right, points to design, to mind -- not to accidental matter. My participation in mind, in spirit, is my participation in Supreme Reality, in God. I do appreciate your concern, however; you just need to direct it elsewhere -- to your own spiritual development perhaps.

Namaste

 

[Dragonfly]

There are good reasons to think that the JW's are vastly wrong on this.

SHOCKING!!!! :lol:

 

[Angel]

SHOCKING!!!! :lol:

Does this pass for wit somewhere still?