how I left Christianity

[mikedsjr]

koin, you've yet to answer how a society being "bad" justifies wiping out the innocents within it. were the children "bad" too?

Yes.

[stickmangrit]

gee mike, how nice to see such a comprehensive and constructive reply. you've dashed my argument all to heck and back, guess i'll go convert and get baptized now. your almost as much a testament to your side of the debate as raymond.


[/sarcasm]

[mikedsjr]

I just thought that was what you wanted me to say, so i gave it to you.

I'll see what I can do for a longer reply later when I have time to write a long long post.

[SkepticOFBible]

Second, "when he heard this story" simply refers to Matthew. Obviously he wasn't there when the birth of Jesus happened. But he followed Jesus for several years, probably knew Mary and Jesus' family well, and probably heard this story about Jesus' birth from one of them. So, many years later, when Matthew sits down to right his account of Jesus' life, he pulls together all the stories he knows about Jesus that are accepted by those who were there, as well as his own accounts and writes them down in his gospel.

The author of Matthew is unknown, so all this talk about him knowing "Mary and Jesus family.... matthew was jew" is nothing more than speculation.

[Norton]

Skeptic,

If you take all the data about who could have possibly written the Book of Matthew - historical data, church tradition, textual criticism, linguistics, thematic emphases, comparison with other synoptics, comparison with other non-canonical writings, etc. - the best candidate is the apostle Matthew. Of course, it's not certain, and there's always a decent chance someone else edited his writings or wrote the account. But for the time being, the evidence leans in the direction of Matthew. Most arguments against Matthean authorship are from silence.

Norton

[SkepticOFBible]

Skeptic,
If you take all the data about who could have possibly written the Book of Matthew - historical data, church tradition, textual criticism, linguistics, thematic emphases, comparison with other synoptics, comparison with other non-canonical writings, etc. - the best candidate is the apostle Matthew.

Or just like other authors of the book of the bible, he is UNKNOWN. It is quite likely that author of Matthew was a gentile, since he made quite a few blunders about the OT especially when it comes to "prophecy fulfillment" verses.

The biggest evidence for your theory for the authorship of matthew would have been manuscripts itself. However since there are no manuscripts which remotely belong to the period that the Gospel of matthew is allegedly written.
It is quite likely that it was written in a much later date, just like the other non-canonical gospels.

Second of all, when apostle matthew is introduced in the story(Matthew 9:9), he is refered to in 3rd person. In here there is ample oppurtunity for author to identify himself with this character, eg by saying " This Matthew was me". But that never happends

Thirdly, you "holy" bible doesn't mention anything about the identity of matthew. That itself speaks volume.

It is one thing to express a opinion on a subject, but it's another thing masquerading balant assertions and speculations as "facts", that too which is based on unproven theory on the authorship.

But for the time being, the evidence leans in the direction of Matthew.

So your want us consider non-canonical books, Catholic traditions and church approved "reports" of early christians, as valid "evidence" for the "fact" that Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew

Given that approach, which you used to declare as a "fact" about the authorship, it can also be declared a fact that Jesus often kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth and loved her more than all the disciples.

"...the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended... They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us? the Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you as I love her?"
- Gospel of Phillip

[Norton]

Skeptic,

What is your academic background regarding New Testament scholarship? Several of your comments suggest you have none.

1. No reputable scholar I've read suggests a gentile as the author of Matthew. Perhaps you can cite one for me.

2. You cite no data for taking a late date for Matthew except that no manuscripts exist from when Matthew was supposedly written. But this is the case with EVERY ancient manuscript. If you use this argument, then you don't believe that ANY ancient manuscript was written when historians think they were because most of the earliest copies come from hundreds of years later.

3. If you had studied many ancient works of literature, you would know that it is commonly accepted for an author to speak in the third person about himself or herself. This is the norm. It would have been the exception for Matthew to speak in the first person.

4. Yes, it is a good idea to consider other works from that time as valid evidence when examining the question.

5.Even the most liberal scholars agree that the gospel of Phillip is a late third century collection that contains hardly anything historical. In fact, it only exists in Coptic, not Greek.

If you're going to ask questions, or raise concerns, go for it. But if you're going to make strong assertions based on poor arguments and virtually no scholarship, don't do it. That only clouds the issues and gives atheists a bad name.

Norton

[SkepticOFBible]

Skeptic,

What is your academic background regarding New Testament scholarship? Several of your comments suggest you have none.

That is a correct guess. But I don't think you have to be a expert to read the bible nor would have mattered to you.

1. No reputable scholar I've read suggests a gentile as the author of Matthew. Perhaps you can cite one for me.

I see, so if a scholar makes claim that the author of Matthew was a gentile then he is not reputable......I see you are already engaging in a premptive ad hominem

There isn't any evidence that the author was a Jew or the apostle either. I said based on the blunders that author pf Matthew made about the OT, it is quite likely that it was written by a non-jew. That is just my opinion.

2. You cite no data for taking a late date for Matthew except that no manuscripts exist from when Matthew was supposedly written. But this is the case with EVERY ancient manuscript. If you use this argument, then you don't believe that ANY ancient manuscript was written when historians think they were because most of the earliest copies come from hundreds of years later.

Matthew was written after 90CE

Other ancient manuscript don't claim to hold the absolute truth about the universe. By your own admittance, the bible does not stand out from these other ancient works.

Isn't it amazing. For a God who claimed to have created the complex universe, could not even ensure the textual and manuscript integrity for his "one true holy word".

Second of all historical opinion and data is updated along with new information. Christians dogma and doctrines do not, as evidenced by the recent events of the discovery of the "Gospel of Judas".

It is only the fundmantalists who are trying to promote the myth of the earlier date and the apostilic authorship for the canonical Gospel, because it fits their pet theory of "Eyewitness account". That is off course far from REALITY.

3. If you had studied many ancient works of literature, you would know that it is commonly accepted for an author to speak in the third person about himself or herself. This is the norm. It would have been the exception for Matthew to speak in the first person.

I am comparing the the Gospel of Matthew with the other books of the bible. Other books had no problem identifying the their authors, yet in this case that is cetainly not the case.

Before you claim the "exception for matthew", you will have to establish that this was the norm in the bible.

4. Yes, it is a good idea to consider other works from that time as valid evidence when examining the question.

Like what?

5.Even the most liberal scholars agree that the gospel of Phillip is a late third century collection that contains hardly anything historical. In fact, it only exists in Coptic, not Greek.

These liberal scholars also agree that the collection of writings in the Gospels aren't historical either. But off course you will not accept that.

The Identity of the authorship of the GOM(Gospel of Matthew) are nothing more than second centuary guesses

The Identity of the Evangelists:Second Century Guesses

If you're going to ask questions, or raise concerns, go for it. But if you're going to make strong assertions based on poor arguments and virtually no scholarship, don't do it.

In other words, I shouldn't question anything which YOU have considered as a "fact", even in reality it is nothing but a lie. And off course, being a christian, automatically makes you a "scholar"!!!!!!!

It is you who have made assertions, not me.

Just so we are clear what we are talking about, go back to your orginal post.

All I did was ask for one biblical evidence for your assertion about the authorship of matthew, for which you had provided none.

Until you prove this "fact", all the of the above speculations is nothing more than hot air

There isn't a single evidence in the bible which shows that the apostle Matthew wrote the GOM.

Rhetorical Questions on the "Witness" of the Apostles

All four gospels were written after 70 CE, at least four decades after the death of Jesus, with the latest, Luke and John, written almost a century after the crucifixion. Attempts by fundamentalists to argue for early dates of gospel composition have met with failure.

If the GOM was written well after 40 years the events of JC, then that pretty much excludes the possiblity of Matthew doing investigative journalism, as you claim he did(like meeting the parents of JC). Most of the people in the stories were long dead, including the apostles themselves.

Matthew did not write Matthew

That only clouds the issues and gives atheists a bad name.

I am only challenging you claims about the authorship.

At the end of the day, "facts" are whatever the believer wants it to be.

Second of all I am not a atheist nor do I claim to represent them.

[Norton]

Skeptic,

You're still making very weak arguments. Of course you don't have to be an expert to read the Bible. But you do have to know what you're talking about if you're going to make the absurd claim that the writer of Matthew was a gentile. There is lots of evidence that the writer was Jewish. There's no need to waste my time giving it, you can read virtually any commentary on Matthew to get it.

Who is Paul Tobin? Don't use articles by random people online to get scholarly information.

I didn't say the Bible doesn't stand out from other books. We're simply talking about whether or not Matthew is the author and thus we use accepted historical practices to determine this. By the criteria that you asserted, you would have to reject the authorship of every ancient document. That's not being consistent unless you're prepared to actually do that.

Could you give me a list of all the other books of the Bible that are historical narrative and provide their author's name explicitly?

Look, at the end of the day, the point is: don't make strong assertions about things you don't really understand and can't defend. And citing guys on the internet like Paul Tobin (whoever that is) doesn't help. When you understand Hebrew and Greek, biblical writing styles, internal coherence, the criterion of double dissimilarity, hapax legomena, typology, form criticism, redaction criticism, sitz im leben, etc., then you can make your argument. But unless you can use valid points to back up your claim (that there is no evidence Matthew or a Jew wrote the Book of Matthew), then don't make the claim.

Norton

[SkepticOFBible]

You're still making very weak arguments. Of course you don't have to be an expert to read the Bible. But you do have to know what you're talking about if you're going to make the absurd claim that the writer of Matthew was a gentile.

What is so absurd about that? It is only absurd because it condradicts your pet dogma of apostle Matthew being the author.

You are talking as if you have proved BEYOND DOUBT that the GOM was written by the said apostle.

I take back my arguement that writer of Matthew was a gentile. My arguement is that he is UNKNOWN and that his writings show any poor understanding of Jewish Scriptures.

There is lots of evidence that the writer was Jewish.

What is this evidence you are talking about? I see none. All you have done is made a assertion that "The Apostle Matthew was the author of Gospel of Matthew"

There's no need to waste my time giving it, you can read virtually any commentary on Matthew to get it.

You mean commentary by christians who want to promote their dogma. No thanks.

Who is Paul Tobin? Don't use articles by random people online to get scholarly information.

Please refrain from ad hominom.

If you have points to rebut his arguements, then do so. His essays are far better researched than the aplogetics ones.

It was you who asked for a citation, and if you look below in the essay, you will find the references of the scholars.

However if you only accept fundamentalist "scholars" which agree with your preconcieved dogma, then I am sorry I don't know of any.

I didn't say the Bible doesn't stand out from other books.

That is the underlying basis for the theology of the Xtianity, and claims of many evangelical xtians.

We're simply talking about whether or not Matthew is the author and thus we use accepted historical practices to determine this. By the criteria that you asserted, you would have to reject the authorship of every ancient document. That's not being consistent unless you're prepared to actually do that.

You are the one to talk about consistency in my belief. It is not me who regard a bunch of ancient document from a ignorant era as being historically correct and true despite the fact

1)No external evidence has been found for most part of the period, especially in regards in to the central characters.
2)These books contradict each other and secular history in regards to a event which is considered by many billions of people to be "the most important historical event in the history of mankind"

Since we in the business of providing list.

1)Name me a non biblical ancient writing, in which the authorship is declared inspite of the fact
a)No one claims the authorship
b)That the guessed author refers to himself in a first person, within the same story.

2)Name me a non-christian/liberal historian who say that the Gospels are "eyewitness" and historically correct accounts written down by the apostles.

Could you give me a list of all the other books of the Bible that are historical narrative and provide their author's name explicitly?

The letters of Paul is a example where the author identifies himself.

As far as the other books goes, the following fundie site puts it correctly

Who were the authors of the books of the Bible?

Few of the books of the Bible specifically name their author. Here are the books of the Bible along with the name of who is most assumed(guessed) by Biblical scholars to be the author(Italised comment mine)

Look, at the end of the day, the point is: don't make strong assertions about things you don't really understand and can't defend.

As if you have made sweeping and invincible arguement for your assertions.

I was not the one who made a bunch of speculation and assertion based on a religious dogma.

And citing guys on the internet like Paul Tobin (whoever that is) doesn't help.

So what non-christian/liberal scholar do you want me to cite?

When you understand Hebrew and Greek, biblical writing styles, internal coherence, the criterion of double dissimilarity, hapax legomena, typology, form criticism, redaction criticism, sitz im leben, etc., then you can make your argument.

If one has to be a expert to understand the "origins"/writings of the bible, then I pretty much I have no use for it.

Nor do I need to be one to see the obvious blunders that unkown author Matthew made about the OT.

Most scholars who use the above methodology say that author of GOM used a another source called the "Gospel of Q"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document

But off course such scholars are not reputable since they are making a "absurd claim" that the Gospels are unoriginal and are not written by the Apostles themselves.

But unless you can use valid points to back up your claim (that there is no evidence Matthew or a Jew wrote the Book of Matthew), then don't make the claim.

That's right.......how can I forget?

You have actually proved that the author of matthew was a jew and was the apostle himself

Oh wait......That only happened in your mind.

And I repeat it again. THERE IS NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE THAT THAT THE APOSTLE MATTHEW WROTE THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

[Norton]

Skeptic,

Look, I'm really not trying to put you down. I'm sure you're a smart person. It's just that I don't feel your arguments are very strong and you misread many of my comments (like that the writer was Jewish...not necessarily Matthew, and that I asked for authorship of historical narrative, not personal letters like Paul's and that I asked for any scholar, conservative or liberal, and I'm not talking about Christian apologists, but bonified scholars that have PhD's in New Testament that teach at undergraduate or graduate schools of any stripe.)

I agree that the author of Matthew is unknown, but when the evidence is weighed, the apostle Matthew is still the best candidate. But even this assertion is not needed to read, understand, and accept the general message of the gospels.

So, we'll just let our arguments stand and hopefully other skeptics of the Bible will do the research for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Norton

[SkepticOFBible]

Skeptic,

Look, I'm really not trying to put you down. I'm sure you're a smart person.

I am not claiming to be one. I usually do average on those IQ test.

In any case, I apologise for some of my behaviour

It's just that I don't feel your arguments are very strong and you misread many of my comments

Once again I apologise for that.

(like that the writer was Jewish...not necessarily Matthew)

Errr....ok.

But that didn't sound like that when you made claims about the author interviewing Jesus's mother

and that I asked for authorship of historical narrative, not personal letters like Paul's

Well, as the christian website puts it, most of the authors of the bible do not identify themselves.

So that is why I said just like the other books of the bible the author of Matthew is unknown.

and that I asked for any scholar, conservative or liberal, and I'm not talking about Christian apologists, but bonified scholars that have PhD's in New Testament that teach at undergraduate or graduate schools of any stripe.

The reason why I refered you to Paul's website because his essays are well researched and his references are listed below, eg here. Most of references are works scholars who hold Ph'D degrees(eg David Barr New Testament Story, is a professor of Religion http://www.wright.edu/~david.barr/), and many of these books are on the list of universities courses of recommended reading.

I have seen very few online articles which use refer to external material. Which is why I refered his article to you.

I agree that the author of Matthew is unknown,

Thank you.

but when the evidence is weighed, the apostle Matthew is still the best candidate.

In other words it is just a guess and is quite subjective.

The bible doesn't make this task any easier either.

But even this assertion is not needed to read, understand, and accept the general message of the gospels.

That isn't even my objection and I don't even have objections of you holdign a opinion about the authorship.

My objection was that you were trying to put forward your speculation as facts, which was based on a assumption that the author of Matthew was a Jew/Apostle

for eg

But he followed Jesus for several years, probably knew Mary and Jesus' family well, and probably heard this story about Jesus' birth from one of them
......
when he writes this story down for all to know, being a good Jew he is familiar with the Isaiah prophecies and it strikes him--this is a fulfillment of the prophecy

Nowhere in your post did you hint that all this was based on a guess.

Do you understand my objection now?

So, we'll just let our arguments stand and hopefully other skeptics of the Bible will do the research for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

off course, we can agree to disagree

[Norton]

Well, it might be subjective, but I still wouldn't say that it's a guess. A guess is when you have no clue what the answer is so you just pick one option.

There is evidence that it was the Apostle Matthew that wrote the book. Very generally speaking (you would be bored with the specifics), the writing style fits what we know about Matthew and his circumstances and there are several early, strong church traditions, other documents, that point to Matthew.

Now, that doesn't make it true, but there are no other documents that point to another writer and no other good candidates. So until scholars or historians or archeologists can propose good evidence in favor of another author, then we should say: "The writer of Matthew is unknown, but based on the limited evidence we do have, the best candidate is the apostle Matthew himself."

In regards to my earliest statement, I will correct it by saying: "...refers to Matthew, if indeed he was the author as evidence suggests."

Better?

Norton

[whoosanightowl]

Skeptic wrote

In any case, I apologise for some of my behaviour...off course, we can agree to disagree

Norton wrote

In regards to my earliest statement, I will correct it by saying: "...refers to Matthew, if indeed he was the author as evidence suggests. Better?"

Congratulations on the truce, boys!

[Emery]

Aw man, it was just starting to get interesting! Truces are for wimps!