It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The True Authorship of the New Testament

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by Jordan River
Originally posted by Kapyong
No official saying unto who have wrote matthew


Scholars agree it was NOT by Matthew, for various reasons you can read here :
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


K.




So it couldn't of been a scribe? I mean he was a tax collector. I'm sure the man had some money to do that




posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Jordan River
Many of the 12, I honestly do believe by that time majority of the 12 had scribes that wrote the Gospels.


Of course you BELIEVE it - you're a faithful believer.
Scholars however, do not.



Originally posted by Jordan River
We may look at the letter of herod in a manner that claims to been created in the 6th century.


A known FORGERY.



Originally posted by Jordan River
John the apostle lived accordingly for about 99 years. So for the man to write it in 70-80 ad is possible if this theory was true.


Only according to the STORIES.
The very same STORIES you are trying to claim true.


K.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Jordan River
So it couldn't of been a scribe? I mean he was a tax collector. I'm sure the man had some money to do that


Please READ the reasons why not :


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.


J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12):

It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still.


Francis Write Beare notes (The Gospel according to Matthew, p. 7):

But the dependence of the book upon documentary sources is so great as to forbid us to look upon it as the work of any immediate disciple of Jesus. Apart from that, there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience.


The author is an anonymous Jewish-Christian. Eduard Schweizer writes (The Good News according to Matthew, p. 16):

The Jewish background is plain. Jewish customs are familiar to everyone (see the discussion of 15:5), the debate about the law is a central question (see the discussion of 5:17-20), and the Sabbath is still observed (see the discussion of 24:20). The dispute with the Pharisees serves primarily as a warning to the community (see the introduction to chapters 24-25); but a reference to leading representatives of the Synagogue is not far below the surface. Above all, the method of learned interpretation of the Law, which "looses" and "binds," was still central for Matthew and his community (see the discussion of 16:19; 18:18). Preservation of sayings, such as 23:2-3, which support the continued authority of Pharisaic teaching, and above all the special emphasis placed on the requirement not to offend those who still think in legalistic terms (see the discussion of 17:24-27), shows that dialogue with the Jewish Synagogue had not broken off. On the other hand, a saying like 27:25 shows that the Christian community had conclusively split with the Synagogues, even though hope for the conversion of Jews was not yet totally dead.


Schweizer joins most scholars in favor of a Syrian provenance for the Gospel of Matthew (op. cit., pp. 15-16):

As the place of origin, Syria is still the most likely possibility. On the one hand, an association with Palestinian Judaism and its interpretation of the Law is clearly discernable; on the other hand, a full recognition of the gentile world and the admission of pagans into the post-Easter community are accepted facts. The destruction of Jerusalem plays some role; but it was not experienced firsthand, and the exodus of Christians from Jerusalem is perceptible only in the tradition borrowed from Mark, not in Matthew himself. . . But Syria is suggested by the major role assigned to Peter, esepcially his authoritative interpretation of Jesus' commands as referring to new situations (see the discussion of 16:9); for according to Acts 12:17 Peter had left Jerusalem. He was certainly in Syrian Antioch, as we know from Galatians 2:1 ff.


K.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Originally posted by Jordan River
Many of the 12, I honestly do believe by that time majority of the 12 had scribes that wrote the Gospels.


Of course you BELIEVE it - you're a faithful believer.
Scholars however, do not.



Originally posted by Jordan River
We may look at the letter of herod in a manner that claims to been created in the 6th century.


A known FORGERY.



Originally posted by Jordan River
John the apostle lived accordingly for about 99 years. So for the man to write it in 70-80 ad is possible if this theory was true.


Only according to the STORIES.
The very same STORIES you are trying to claim true.


K.



Scholars don't believe that scribes could of written them throughout the ages? Making whatever version we have in the bible today? that's too much for you to believe in? and that makes me a faithful nut case? lol

The forgery could of been affiliated from a copy of a copy and so on. So much so that the one we have obtain is easily debunked as a fake.

I don't think scholar/science could ever figure out who wrote what and when. We weren't there. So to make an assumption has so pretty wide space for interpatatin. Including scholar studies.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I've read your information and it doesn't give up a possible scribe theory which would indeed make large sense. Truly if this was written in (what was it 65 or 85 ad that I read?) than the possiblity that it could of been a copy of an original. More than likely. By that time they were using it to spread the word. I'm sure the 12 had their own disciples themselves and to better reach the people made copies to spread the word throughout the ages.

This may be borderline religious nutcase. But I believe if you can think it up than it may of happened.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Jordan River
Scholars don't believe that scribes could of written them throughout the ages?


What?
That's exactly what scholars DO believe.

These books WERE written thru the ages - some CENTURIES after the alleged events - meaning they are worthless as history.



Originally posted by Jordan River
Making whatever version we have in the bible today? that's too much for you to believe in? and that makes me a faithful nut case? lol


What?



Originally posted by Jordan River
The forgery could of been affiliated from a copy of a copy and so on. So much so that the one we have obtain is easily debunked as a fake.


What?
I think you need English classes.



Originally posted by Jordan River
I don't think scholar/science could ever figure out who wrote what and when. We weren't there. So to make an assumption has so pretty wide space for interpatatin. Including scholar studies.


Ah, the old chestnut :
"we weren't there, so anything could have happened, therefore MY beliefs are true"

How silly.


K.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Jordan River
I've read your information and it doesn't give up a possible scribe theory which would indeed make large sense. Truly if this was written in (what was it 65 or 85 ad that I read?) than the possiblity that it could of been a copy of an original. More than likely. By that time they were using it to spread the word. I'm sure the 12 had their own disciples themselves and to better reach the people made copies to spread the word throughout the ages.


The 12 are characters in a STORY.
The very SAME STORY you are trying to claim is true.

Not one single Christian ever claimed to have met Jesus, or even met anyone who said they had met Jesus.

What we have is a set of STORIES.
Then, later, OTHER people BELIEVE the stories.

But, the people IN the stories are completely MISSING, even from Christian history.

No-one mete Mary, or Joseph, or Lazarus, or Nicodemus etc....
These people were all fictional.


K.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I've always wondered why god favors the poor. What if I have alot of money? I'm not just going to give it away and live off the land.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
well I can't make anyone change their minds on a message board. Those who do believe vs the others. That's what it all comes down too.


So to make an argument on my stance is futile to some. But i truly do hope that hemisphere will take it into some account.

Stories to some, truth to others



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Weren't the pre existing nicene council already made of christian bishops?



Did romans create christianity?


wiki.answers.com...



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Jordan River
well I can't make anyone change their minds on a message board.


Yes you can.
It happens all the time.

You present facts, with argument, and if you are correct you should be able to convince a fair person.

But sadly, that's not what this site is about is it?

It's a "conspiracy" site, where people can post "conspiracy theories", it's not about facts at all.

Few people here seem at all interested in discussing the facts :-(

Even when comprehensivly shown wrong, almost no-one here can admit error.


K.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr_Suess

At this point, since you cannot support your assertion with any proof what so ever, I am going to bow out of the thread and leave you to your ignorance on the subject matter. It is too bad that the level of scholarship here has shown to be of a child like level.



Thanks for stopping by.


Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.


In your estimation I must be well on my way doc.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Originally posted by Hemisphere
VIVIVI (Roman for 666)


Wrong again -
VIVIVI is not Roman for 666.
It's DCLXVI.

You just make it up as you go, without ever checking anything.


K.


It is a riddle. It was for amusement of the court. They got it, they were in on the joke.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jordan River


Dear hemisphere. What the issue is without going further into abstract and unknown readings is that if the roman government did create it they did indeed create their ultimate down fall and were crushed beneath them for it.



Thanks for contributing JR. Some consider that the Roman Empire never fell and only went underground. Yes the physical Rome fell. My assertion is that the clues that were left were to keep us enslaved. The "Greatest Story Ever Told" as you've likely heard. A story none the less. Consider all of the miracles and only a handful saw them. Word never spread far and wide of the Galilean, why? These acts and events would have drawn great attention and would eventually have been recorded by outside sources and you don't see that. They were rather thorough in building the story but everything has its' limits. This is just my opinion. I wasn't there and neither were any of these bibliophiles. My premise is that the book lies and theirs is that no book lies. I suspect I frustrate people because I refuse to be entrapped by words. I'm looking at it now. I don't need dead eyes.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


Can't have it both ways Jordan. Simple fishermen pulled away from their families did not have scribes. This is being typed by my scribe by the way.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hemisphere
reply to post by Jordan River
 


Can't have it both ways Jordan. Simple fishermen pulled away from their families did not have scribes. This is being typed by my scribe by the way.


I'm sure it was easy to get a scribe. seeing how reputation increases with who you're with and so on. anyways. It's hard to fight this without using scripture facts



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
wiki.answers.com...'_existence

found it. I was looking through and through. I guess this isn't considered scripture. Forgot to think of those peeps. lol
No real answer in the end. I leave it to you

Then we have this... The talmud www.facingthechallenge.org...
wanted to say that this is indeed a pro christ site and I am sorry. but yeah the talmud that's what i'm trying to prove here.
[edit on 2-1-2010 by Jordan River]

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Jordan River]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 

Submission to tyranny, I think not. When Jesus says give to Caesar what is Caesar's, he isn't saying bow down and submit to him. He is saying respect the current social order, and don't act like you are above the social order of the day, but at the same time, try to change the social order.

Matthew 10:34
"Think not that I came to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword."



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hemisphere

The True Authorship of the New Testament




Read the following Biblical verse:


And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him.

- Mark 12:17 KJV


I've always thought that only a Roman could have written that. Give to me, your oppressor, everything of earthly value and as for God? Give him those intangibles that will soothe you. Give God your soul, your prayers and your allegiance. Those have no value to the Caesars. You are slaves and we your controllers have given you a creed that will sustain you in your oppression and lock you blissfully into that oppression.

The NT is full of catch phrases that prescribe submission to tyranny.


You completely took that scripture out of context.

I've used that one for people who try justify stealing.

What Jesus was referring to was a coin with Caesar's face on it (reading the entirety of that passage would have revealed that to you). The man that approached Jesus questioned why he had to pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus had replied, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

It was a simple lesson of ownership, and a powerful one too!

It can very much be applied to pirating movies, music and games. Simply put if you are taking something which is not yours, that has a price associated with it, you're stealing.

To walk in a store and lift a copy of Windows 7 is no different than d/ling the torrent online. The internet has certainly blurred that line for MANY people, but don't be fooled! Taking something of value without paying for it is stealing, PERIOD.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


I like your post.

Did you ever notice along with "render unto Caesar"
God also said "the gold is mine"? Hag 2:8

Who is this guy??? Sounds a little schizophrenic to me.


[edit on 3-1-2010 by rusethorcain]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join