19 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobIt seems to me that is the essence of what you are saying, in fact, you stated that I use
[b]4. Proper Knob, it cannot be true because its in the Bible,
That's not what i said, and you know that's not what i said. Why are you making it up?[/b]
circular reasoning by citing the Bible as evidence, the logical conclusion therefore
appears to me that you do not hold the Bible as evidence in itself , leading me to the
conclusion that I stated. If you do hold the Bible as evidence i cannot be accused of
circular reasoning, can I, because the Bible is evidence in itself.
19 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThanks for the copy paste of the Jehovah's Witnesses organisation opinion on this matter, which I take it is your opinion too. Is that so?
Here are the facts,
1.While the Gospel credited to Matthew does not name him as the writer, the overwhelming testimony of early church historians stamps him as such. ..
[text shortened]
source: Jehovahs Witnesses
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLet's have a look at these dates then -
seeing that the antichrists were unable to substantiate a single claim or produce a
shred of evidence with which to back up their ludicrous assertions,
1. FMF, its true because I say it is,
2. Voidreason, its a fable because I say it is,
3, Proper Knob, it cannot be true because its in the Bible,
4. Stellspalfie, it cannot be true because ...[text shortened]... ptures, showing that they pointed forward to the
coming Messiah.
source: Jehovahs Witnesses
Papias of Hierapolis - wrote in the first third of the second century.
Justin Martyr - (AD 100–ca.165)
Epistle to Diognetus - Dated Late 2nd century.
Hegesippus - 110 — c. April 7, 180 AD
Irenæus - 2nd cenutry C.E. – c. 202
Tatian - c. 120–180
Athenagoras - ca. 133 – 190
Theophilus - His death probably occurred between 183 and 185.
Clement - c.150 – c. 215
Tertullian - c. 160 – c. 225 AD
Origen - 184/185 – 253/254
These people listed from your cut and paste lived, at the earliest, 70 years after the death of Jesus. How are they supposed to provide evidence that Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus when they weren't even born?
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou can't use the Bible as evidence for your claim in support of the Bible. That's logic 101, even me with my pathetic rudimentary knowledge of logic knows that.
It seems to me that is the essence of what you are saying, in fact, you stated that I use
circular reasoning by citing the Bible as evidence, the logical conclusion therefore
appears to me that you do not hold the Bible as evidence in itself , leading me to the
conclusion that I stated. If you do hold the Bible as evidence i cannot be accused of
circular reasoning, can I, because the Bible is evidence in itself.
19 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knob70 years, oh dear such damning logic, tragic really, the people who wrote the account
Let's have a look at these dates then -
Papias of Hierapolis - wrote in the first third of the second century.
Justin Martyr - (AD 100–ca.165)
Epistle to Diognetus - Dated Late 2nd century.
Hegesippus - 110 — c. April 7, 180 AD
Irenæus - 2nd cenutry C.E. – c. 202
Tatian - c. 120–180
Athenagoras - ca. 133 – 190
Theophilus - His de ...[text shortened]... osed to provide evidence that Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus when they weren't even born?
of Alexander lived three hundred years after the event, seventy years by way of
ancient history is a nada, N A D A!
19 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobI can and I will, for example, if it can be demonstrated that Matthew demonstrated a
You can't use the Bible as evidence for your claim in support of the Bible. That's logic 101, even me with my pathetic rudimentary knowledge of logic knows that.
more than usual accurate portrayal of tax and monetary matters, or Luke a more
thorough knowledge of medicine, then these internal evidences can certainly be used to
draw attention to its authenticity and the authors credibility.
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot really. I have long been aware that some Christians are under the impression that the authors of the gospels knew Jesus in person. So your theory/opinion is not new to me at all.
Dont mention it. Anything for your continuing education.
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe're discussing your claim that Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus and that you can substantiate this with facts.
70 years, oh dear such damning logic, tragic really, the people who wrote the account
of Alexander lived three hundred years after the event, seventy years by way of
ancient history is a nada, N A D A!
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo the authors of each Gospel new about tax and medicine respectively, that is hardly compelling evidence they were contemporaries of Jesus. It appears you are preseting nothing more than your self-certified opinion to me.
I can and I will, for example, if it can be demonstrated that Matthew demonstrated a
more than usual accurate portrayal of tax and monetary matters, or Luke a more
thorough knowledge of medicine, then these internal evidences can certainly be used to
draw attention to its authenticity and the authors credibility.
19 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobPerhaps i have not made it clear enough, for example, if someone states that a person
So the authors of each Gospel new about tax and medicine respectively, that is hardly compelling evidence they were contemporaries of Jesus. It appears you are preseting nothing more than your self-certified opinion to me.
was ill and Luke, a physician states the nature of the illness and its extent, it leads one
to the conclusion that the author was more observant and/or well versed in that
particular discipline, thus adding weight to the claim that they authored the respective
book, because its what one would expect from a physician, tis it not?
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou provided a list of people who have mentioned the Gospel of Matthew in their respective writings who lived at least 70 years after the death of Jesus. How are they supposed to corroborate your belief that Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus when they were yet to be born?
I have provided historical facts, respected authors, historians and church fathers, suck
them up into your mind .
19 Oct 12
Originally posted by Proper Knobbecause they say as much.
You provided a list of people who have mentioned the Gospel of Matthew in their respective writings who lived at least 70 years after the death of Jesus. How are they supposed to corroborate your belief that Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus when they were yet to be born?