Proof How Your Religion Could Be Made Up

[sealybobo]

Let's say God is real. He knows exactly what it would take for me to believe, what bit of evidence (for lack of a better word) that would turn me into a believer. So far, God hasn't provided that bit of evidence. Why would God rather I burn in a lake of fire for eternity than provide that thing I need?

Because to do that would totally remove the element of faith, of accepting WITHOUT incontrovertible proof. "Do a trick" is pointless.

Why does god care so much that we believe in him?

Because He wants people to accept Him voluntarily, because they recognize their need for Him, not because He came down and figuratively bashed them over the head with a 2X4.

What do I need a god for? I love people without believing in him. I know right from wrong and do right most of the time, and I'm sorry when I don't. You can teach humans right from wrong without fear in the boogy man or santa or god you know.

You can teach them that, and in fact that's exactly what the Mosaic Law was all about, teaching man right from wrong. What you can't do, however, is eliminate sin from a person's life.

If there is a god, I accept him. Are you happy? But I don't believe the Jesus story. I think humans made that up. Now am I going to burn in hell?

Yes.

Why, because I don't believe you and your priest and the ancients of your primitive society?

I have no priest, BTW. I don't need one, but the fact that you reference the idea that I do is very telling. No, you're headed to hell because you are a sinful person and refuse to accept the path that God set up for reconciliation with Him. It's really not that hard to understand.

Are you kidding me? My muslim friends say I'll go to hell for not believing them too. Who should I believe god?

You're not asking Him, you're asking me. Therein lies your problem. I can tell you, but you won't believe it.

Joseph Smith asked the same question and god told him to start his own religion. Do you believe that? Then maybe you are going to hell. See how stupid it all is?

God didn't tell him to do it, and Smith would have known that had he paid any attention at all to the Word we already have.

We don't need a god. I found a job without him. I'm a good person without him. People still love me and I'm happy without him. I've lived a good life.

It will all be wasted, because you can't be "good enough". No one can.

Belief in the efficacy of prayer is a form of confirmation bias. Information and coincidences which, by chance, appear to support the belief are favoured and remembered while those that do not are discarded or rationalised. See also: Cherry Picking.

Idiots who try to prove or disprove prayer while refusing any kind of contact with God Himself are no more effective than if they were screaming in a hurricane.

By incorrectly attributing supernatural causal relationships to otherwise minor correlations, prayer becomes a form of self-deception known as magical thinking or Wishful thinking.

Most people have no idea what prayer really is. It's no wonder so few see results.

For the conceivably large number of prayers that occur over time there are relatively few ‘answers’ acknowledged by churches and none that are actually demonstrable, such as the healing of amputees or moving of mountains.

Like I said, most people have no idea what prayer really is or what God wants to do with them. Also like I've said, God is not an ATM. You don't just push the right buttons and have the goodies fall out. You can't control Him, and that drives atheists nuts, because in this arena, they insist on believing nothing they cannot replicate in the lab. They won't ever get it, because God is not interested in doing tricks.

Studies have failed to find any evidence for benefits from prayer that cannot be ruled out as either the placebo effect or a form of cognitive behavioural therapy.

See above. God is a sovereign being who moves and acts according to His will, not ours, and those who refuse Him especially will not see Him act.

Fair enough. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Oh and the Mormon schtick the thing that makes them different is they use the corrupt history of christianity to say normal christians have lost the authority from god. That basically the bible was edited and altered and god told Joseph all the catholic baptist Presbyterian lutherans etc are all corrupt and to start anew. And their chain hasn't been broken from when god talked to Joseph smith1800 to now. They say they are the one true word of god.

But great replies from you. I disagree but at least you're honest and don't sugarcoat it.

 

[hadit]

Because to do that would totally remove the element of faith, of accepting WITHOUT incontrovertible proof. "Do a trick" is pointless.

Why does god care so much that we believe in him?

Because He wants people to accept Him voluntarily, because they recognize their need for Him, not because He came down and figuratively bashed them over the head with a 2X4.

What do I need a god for? I love people without believing in him. I know right from wrong and do right most of the time, and I'm sorry when I don't. You can teach humans right from wrong without fear in the boogy man or santa or god you know.

You can teach them that, and in fact that's exactly what the Mosaic Law was all about, teaching man right from wrong. What you can't do, however, is eliminate sin from a person's life.

If there is a god, I accept him. Are you happy? But I don't believe the Jesus story. I think humans made that up. Now am I going to burn in hell?

Yes.

Why, because I don't believe you and your priest and the ancients of your primitive society?

I have no priest, BTW. I don't need one, but the fact that you reference the idea that I do is very telling. No, you're headed to hell because you are a sinful person and refuse to accept the path that God set up for reconciliation with Him. It's really not that hard to understand.

Are you kidding me? My muslim friends say I'll go to hell for not believing them too. Who should I believe god?

You're not asking Him, you're asking me. Therein lies your problem. I can tell you, but you won't believe it.

Joseph Smith asked the same question and god told him to start his own religion. Do you believe that? Then maybe you are going to hell. See how stupid it all is?

God didn't tell him to do it, and Smith would have known that had he paid any attention at all to the Word we already have.

We don't need a god. I found a job without him. I'm a good person without him. People still love me and I'm happy without him. I've lived a good life.

It will all be wasted, because you can't be "good enough". No one can.

Belief in the efficacy of prayer is a form of confirmation bias. Information and coincidences which, by chance, appear to support the belief are favoured and remembered while those that do not are discarded or rationalised. See also: Cherry Picking.

Idiots who try to prove or disprove prayer while refusing any kind of contact with God Himself are no more effective than if they were screaming in a hurricane.

By incorrectly attributing supernatural causal relationships to otherwise minor correlations, prayer becomes a form of self-deception known as magical thinking or Wishful thinking.

Most people have no idea what prayer really is. It's no wonder so few see results.

For the conceivably large number of prayers that occur over time there are relatively few ‘answers’ acknowledged by churches and none that are actually demonstrable, such as the healing of amputees or moving of mountains.

Like I said, most people have no idea what prayer really is or what God wants to do with them. Also like I've said, God is not an ATM. You don't just push the right buttons and have the goodies fall out. You can't control Him, and that drives atheists nuts, because in this arena, they insist on believing nothing they cannot replicate in the lab. They won't ever get it, because God is not interested in doing tricks.

Studies have failed to find any evidence for benefits from prayer that cannot be ruled out as either the placebo effect or a form of cognitive behavioural therapy.

See above. God is a sovereign being who moves and acts according to His will, not ours, and those who refuse Him especially will not see Him act.

Fair enough. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Oh and the Mormon schtick the thing that makes them different is they use the corrupt history of christianity to say normal christians have lost the authority from god. That basically the bible was edited and altered and god told Joseph all the catholic baptist Presbyterian lutherans etc are all corrupt and to start anew. And their chain hasn't been broken from when god talked to Joseph smith1800 to now. They say they are the one true word of god.

But great replies from you. I disagree but at least you're honest and don't sugarcoat it.

Thanks for a civil discussion that made me look at what I believe and why.

 

[sealybobo]

Why does god care so much that we believe in him?

Because He wants people to accept Him voluntarily, because they recognize their need for Him, not because He came down and figuratively bashed them over the head with a 2X4.

What do I need a god for? I love people without believing in him. I know right from wrong and do right most of the time, and I'm sorry when I don't. You can teach humans right from wrong without fear in the boogy man or santa or god you know.

You can teach them that, and in fact that's exactly what the Mosaic Law was all about, teaching man right from wrong. What you can't do, however, is eliminate sin from a person's life.

If there is a god, I accept him. Are you happy? But I don't believe the Jesus story. I think humans made that up. Now am I going to burn in hell?

Yes.

Why, because I don't believe you and your priest and the ancients of your primitive society?

I have no priest, BTW. I don't need one, but the fact that you reference the idea that I do is very telling. No, you're headed to hell because you are a sinful person and refuse to accept the path that God set up for reconciliation with Him. It's really not that hard to understand.

Are you kidding me? My muslim friends say I'll go to hell for not believing them too. Who should I believe god?

You're not asking Him, you're asking me. Therein lies your problem. I can tell you, but you won't believe it.

Joseph Smith asked the same question and god told him to start his own religion. Do you believe that? Then maybe you are going to hell. See how stupid it all is?

God didn't tell him to do it, and Smith would have known that had he paid any attention at all to the Word we already have.

We don't need a god. I found a job without him. I'm a good person without him. People still love me and I'm happy without him. I've lived a good life.

It will all be wasted, because you can't be "good enough". No one can.

Belief in the efficacy of prayer is a form of confirmation bias. Information and coincidences which, by chance, appear to support the belief are favoured and remembered while those that do not are discarded or rationalised. See also: Cherry Picking.

Idiots who try to prove or disprove prayer while refusing any kind of contact with God Himself are no more effective than if they were screaming in a hurricane.

By incorrectly attributing supernatural causal relationships to otherwise minor correlations, prayer becomes a form of self-deception known as magical thinking or Wishful thinking.

Most people have no idea what prayer really is. It's no wonder so few see results.

For the conceivably large number of prayers that occur over time there are relatively few ‘answers’ acknowledged by churches and none that are actually demonstrable, such as the healing of amputees or moving of mountains.

Like I said, most people have no idea what prayer really is or what God wants to do with them. Also like I've said, God is not an ATM. You don't just push the right buttons and have the goodies fall out. You can't control Him, and that drives atheists nuts, because in this arena, they insist on believing nothing they cannot replicate in the lab. They won't ever get it, because God is not interested in doing tricks.

Studies have failed to find any evidence for benefits from prayer that cannot be ruled out as either the placebo effect or a form of cognitive behavioural therapy.

See above. God is a sovereign being who moves and acts according to His will, not ours, and those who refuse Him especially will not see Him act.

Fair enough. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Oh and the Mormon schtick the thing that makes them different is they use the corrupt history of christianity to say normal christians have lost the authority from god. That basically the bible was edited and altered and god told Joseph all the catholic baptist Presbyterian lutherans etc are all corrupt and to start anew. And their chain hasn't been broken from when god talked to Joseph smith1800 to now. They say they are the one true word of god.

But great replies from you. I disagree but at least you're honest and don't sugarcoat it.

Thanks for a civil discussion that made me look at what I believe and why.

Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90 CE; a pre-70 date remains a minority view. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. According to the majority of modern scholars, the author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source.

 

[sealybobo]

Most scholars agree, following what is known as the "Marcan hypothesis",that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when writing their gospels after the Gospel of Mark was completed (written 60-75 CE)

 

[sealybobo]

Why does god care so much that we believe in him?

Because He wants people to accept Him voluntarily, because they recognize their need for Him, not because He came down and figuratively bashed them over the head with a 2X4.

What do I need a god for? I love people without believing in him. I know right from wrong and do right most of the time, and I'm sorry when I don't. You can teach humans right from wrong without fear in the boogy man or santa or god you know.

You can teach them that, and in fact that's exactly what the Mosaic Law was all about, teaching man right from wrong. What you can't do, however, is eliminate sin from a person's life.

If there is a god, I accept him. Are you happy? But I don't believe the Jesus story. I think humans made that up. Now am I going to burn in hell?

Yes.

Why, because I don't believe you and your priest and the ancients of your primitive society?

I have no priest, BTW. I don't need one, but the fact that you reference the idea that I do is very telling. No, you're headed to hell because you are a sinful person and refuse to accept the path that God set up for reconciliation with Him. It's really not that hard to understand.

Are you kidding me? My muslim friends say I'll go to hell for not believing them too. Who should I believe god?

You're not asking Him, you're asking me. Therein lies your problem. I can tell you, but you won't believe it.

Joseph Smith asked the same question and god told him to start his own religion. Do you believe that? Then maybe you are going to hell. See how stupid it all is?

God didn't tell him to do it, and Smith would have known that had he paid any attention at all to the Word we already have.

We don't need a god. I found a job without him. I'm a good person without him. People still love me and I'm happy without him. I've lived a good life.

It will all be wasted, because you can't be "good enough". No one can.

Belief in the efficacy of prayer is a form of confirmation bias. Information and coincidences which, by chance, appear to support the belief are favoured and remembered while those that do not are discarded or rationalised. See also: Cherry Picking.

Idiots who try to prove or disprove prayer while refusing any kind of contact with God Himself are no more effective than if they were screaming in a hurricane.

By incorrectly attributing supernatural causal relationships to otherwise minor correlations, prayer becomes a form of self-deception known as magical thinking or Wishful thinking.

Most people have no idea what prayer really is. It's no wonder so few see results.

For the conceivably large number of prayers that occur over time there are relatively few ‘answers’ acknowledged by churches and none that are actually demonstrable, such as the healing of amputees or moving of mountains.

Like I said, most people have no idea what prayer really is or what God wants to do with them. Also like I've said, God is not an ATM. You don't just push the right buttons and have the goodies fall out. You can't control Him, and that drives atheists nuts, because in this arena, they insist on believing nothing they cannot replicate in the lab. They won't ever get it, because God is not interested in doing tricks.

Studies have failed to find any evidence for benefits from prayer that cannot be ruled out as either the placebo effect or a form of cognitive behavioural therapy.

See above. God is a sovereign being who moves and acts according to His will, not ours, and those who refuse Him especially will not see Him act.

Fair enough. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Oh and the Mormon schtick the thing that makes them different is they use the corrupt history of christianity to say normal christians have lost the authority from god. That basically the bible was edited and altered and god told Joseph all the catholic baptist Presbyterian lutherans etc are all corrupt and to start anew. And their chain hasn't been broken from when god talked to Joseph smith1800 to now. They say they are the one true word of god.

But great replies from you. I disagree but at least you're honest and don't sugarcoat it.

Thanks for a civil discussion that made me look at what I believe and why.

Author
The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the second century. The tradition that the author was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (c.100-140 CE), who is cited by the Church historian Eusebius (260-340 CE), as follows: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia: sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language ( Hebraïdi dialektōi), and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen - perhaps "translated") them as best he could." On the surface, this has been taken to imply that Matthew's Gospel itself was written in Hebrew or Aramaic by the apostle Matthew and later translated into Greek, but nowhere does the author claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation." Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language. The consensus is that Papias does not describe the Gospel of Matthew as we know it, and it is generally accepted that Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew.

 

[PostmodernProph]

It is theism that doesnt exist if you are claiming to know god exists.

I BELIEVE in God......atheists BELIEVE there are no gods......however, they pretend they conclude this rationally.....that is what marks them as irrational......

Organized religions claim god visiting is a historical fact. That's not just taking the position they BELIEVE.

whether or not Jesus existed on earth is a question of historical fact......whether he is God incarnate is a question of belief.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

. You have to believe in god to be a member. Why?

obviously, because God is looking for people who choose to believe in him........

 

[PostmodernProph]

Most scholars agree, following what is known as the "Marcan hypothesis",that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when writing their gospels after the Gospel of Mark was completed (written 60-75 CE)

actually most scholars agree that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark and Luke wrote Luke.....given that all three knew each other and that all three gospels were set down in writing after twenty years of shared oral tradition it would be more amazing if there were NOT similarities......

 

[sealybobo]

It is theism that doesnt exist if you are claiming to know god exists.

I BELIEVE in God......atheists BELIEVE there are no gods......however, they pretend they conclude this rationally.....that is what marks them as irrational......

Organized religions claim god visiting is a historical fact. That's not just taking the position they BELIEVE.

whether or not Jesus existed on earth is a question of historical fact......whether he is God incarnate is a question of belief.......

Its questionable. No one from his day wrote about him while he was living. No record of his crucifixion in roman records. Its all hearsay.

I'm not going to trust ancient fairytales. Joseph smith moses and Mohammad were real people too. Well Mohammad and Joe smith were. Moses not so sure. They say he existed 3600 to 2500 years ago. Pretty big window to say the guy really lived at one time. Sounds like a story to me. Like Adam and Noah and Abraham and jonah. If none of them are real maybe neither is Jesus. Why didn't the Jews convert then? They saw it. Go ahead explain away.

 

[sealybobo]

Most scholars agree, following what is known as the "Marcan hypothesis",that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when writing their gospels after the Gospel of Mark was completed (written 60-75 CE)

actually most scholars agree that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark and Luke wrote Luke.....given that all three knew each other and that all three gospels were set down in writing after twenty years of shared oral tradition it would be more amazing if there were NOT similarities......

Show me most scholars agree with you that mark Luke and Matt penned their own books.

 

[sealybobo]

Jews Muslims and Mormons don't call bs on the Jesus was a real person thing because one con man doesnt call out another con man because then that con man will call him out right back. Like two used car salespeople competing for your business. If you tell the customer what's wrong with my car I'll tell on you. Or democrats and GOP. Or 2 mafia dons don't rat on each other.

 

[PostmodernProph]

It is theism that doesnt exist if you are claiming to know god exists.

I BELIEVE in God......atheists BELIEVE there are no gods......however, they pretend they conclude this rationally.....that is what marks them as irrational......

Organized religions claim god visiting is a historical fact. That's not just taking the position they BELIEVE.

whether or not Jesus existed on earth is a question of historical fact......whether he is God incarnate is a question of belief.......

Its questionable. No one from his day wrote about him while he was living. No record of his crucifixion in roman records. Its all hearsay.

it's no more hearsay than for example, the American Revolution...everything we know about that was also written by people who experienced it......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Most scholars agree, following what is known as the "Marcan hypothesis",that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when writing their gospels after the Gospel of Mark was completed (written 60-75 CE)

actually most scholars agree that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark and Luke wrote Luke.....given that all three knew each other and that all three gospels were set down in writing after twenty years of shared oral tradition it would be more amazing if there were NOT similarities......

Show me most scholars agree with you that mark Luke and Matt penned their own books.

lol.....you've been flapping your lips about "most scholars" here for months and have never provided any documentation of it.....now you think its important?......the gospel of Luke has had Luke's name on it ever since he handed the first copy of it to his followers.......I give you four billion scholars over two thousand years.....what do you have?....a half dozen atheists since 1936?.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Jews Muslims and Mormons don't call bs on the Jesus was a real person thing because one con man doesnt call out another con man because then that con man will call him out right back. Like two used car salespeople competing for your business. If you tell the customer what's wrong with my car I'll tell on you. Or democrats and GOP. Or 2 mafia dons don't rat on each other.

or two atheists will quote each other and say "this scholar proves what I claim"?......

 

[sealybobo]

It is theism that doesnt exist if you are claiming to know god exists.

I BELIEVE in God......atheists BELIEVE there are no gods......however, they pretend they conclude this rationally.....that is what marks them as irrational......

Organized religions claim god visiting is a historical fact. That's not just taking the position they BELIEVE.

whether or not Jesus existed on earth is a question of historical fact......whether he is God incarnate is a question of belief.......

Its questionable. No one from his day wrote about him while he was living. No record of his crucifixion in roman records. Its all hearsay.

it's no more hearsay than for example, the American Revolution...everything we know about that was also written by people who experienced it......

If the person who penned Luke didn't see what Luke was claiming then its hearsay right from the start. Show me Luke wrote Luke. He probably didn't even know how to write. The bibles were written over hundreds of years.

 

[sealybobo]

Most scholars agree, following what is known as the "Marcan hypothesis",that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when writing their gospels after the Gospel of Mark was completed (written 60-75 CE)

actually most scholars agree that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark and Luke wrote Luke.....given that all three knew each other and that all three gospels were set down in writing after twenty years of shared oral tradition it would be more amazing if there were NOT similarities......

Show me most scholars agree with you that mark Luke and Matt penned their own books.

lol.....you've been flapping your lips about "most scholars" here for months and have never provided any documentation of it.....now you think its important?......the gospel of Luke has had Luke's name on it ever since he handed the first copy of it to his followers.......I give you four billion scholars over two thousand years.....what do you have?....a half dozen atheists since 1936?.......

Sometimes the authors wrote in first person sometimes not. Where are the shrines or urns that hold the remains of these papyrus books? Where is Luke mark and Paul's graves? Hell where is Jesus' grave site? Your religions history is sketchy. So are the writings. Now go ask your preacher who wrote the bibles.

 

[hadit]

Because He wants people to accept Him voluntarily, because they recognize their need for Him, not because He came down and figuratively bashed them over the head with a 2X4.

What do I need a god for? I love people without believing in him. I know right from wrong and do right most of the time, and I'm sorry when I don't. You can teach humans right from wrong without fear in the boogy man or santa or god you know.

You can teach them that, and in fact that's exactly what the Mosaic Law was all about, teaching man right from wrong. What you can't do, however, is eliminate sin from a person's life.

If there is a god, I accept him. Are you happy? But I don't believe the Jesus story. I think humans made that up. Now am I going to burn in hell?

Yes.

Why, because I don't believe you and your priest and the ancients of your primitive society?

I have no priest, BTW. I don't need one, but the fact that you reference the idea that I do is very telling. No, you're headed to hell because you are a sinful person and refuse to accept the path that God set up for reconciliation with Him. It's really not that hard to understand.

Are you kidding me? My muslim friends say I'll go to hell for not believing them too. Who should I believe god?

You're not asking Him, you're asking me. Therein lies your problem. I can tell you, but you won't believe it.

Joseph Smith asked the same question and god told him to start his own religion. Do you believe that? Then maybe you are going to hell. See how stupid it all is?

God didn't tell him to do it, and Smith would have known that had he paid any attention at all to the Word we already have.

We don't need a god. I found a job without him. I'm a good person without him. People still love me and I'm happy without him. I've lived a good life.

It will all be wasted, because you can't be "good enough". No one can.

Belief in the efficacy of prayer is a form of confirmation bias. Information and coincidences which, by chance, appear to support the belief are favoured and remembered while those that do not are discarded or rationalised. See also: Cherry Picking.

Idiots who try to prove or disprove prayer while refusing any kind of contact with God Himself are no more effective than if they were screaming in a hurricane.

By incorrectly attributing supernatural causal relationships to otherwise minor correlations, prayer becomes a form of self-deception known as magical thinking or Wishful thinking.

Most people have no idea what prayer really is. It's no wonder so few see results.

For the conceivably large number of prayers that occur over time there are relatively few ‘answers’ acknowledged by churches and none that are actually demonstrable, such as the healing of amputees or moving of mountains.

Like I said, most people have no idea what prayer really is or what God wants to do with them. Also like I've said, God is not an ATM. You don't just push the right buttons and have the goodies fall out. You can't control Him, and that drives atheists nuts, because in this arena, they insist on believing nothing they cannot replicate in the lab. They won't ever get it, because God is not interested in doing tricks.

Studies have failed to find any evidence for benefits from prayer that cannot be ruled out as either the placebo effect or a form of cognitive behavioural therapy.

See above. God is a sovereign being who moves and acts according to His will, not ours, and those who refuse Him especially will not see Him act.

Fair enough. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Oh and the Mormon schtick the thing that makes them different is they use the corrupt history of christianity to say normal christians have lost the authority from god. That basically the bible was edited and altered and god told Joseph all the catholic baptist Presbyterian lutherans etc are all corrupt and to start anew. And their chain hasn't been broken from when god talked to Joseph smith1800 to now. They say they are the one true word of god.

But great replies from you. I disagree but at least you're honest and don't sugarcoat it.

Thanks for a civil discussion that made me look at what I believe and why.

Author
The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the second century. The tradition that the author was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (c.100-140 CE), who is cited by the Church historian Eusebius (260-340 CE), as follows: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia: sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language ( Hebraïdi dialektōi), and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen - perhaps "translated") them as best he could." On the surface, this has been taken to imply that Matthew's Gospel itself was written in Hebrew or Aramaic by the apostle Matthew and later translated into Greek, but nowhere does the author claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation." Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language. The consensus is that Papias does not describe the Gospel of Matthew as we know it, and it is generally accepted that Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew.

That doesn't really bother me, and I'm not quite sure why you feel it is something that should cost Christians sleep at night.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I BELIEVE in God......atheists BELIEVE there are no gods......however, they pretend they conclude this rationally.....that is what marks them as irrational......

Organized religions claim god visiting is a historical fact. That's not just taking the position they BELIEVE.

whether or not Jesus existed on earth is a question of historical fact......whether he is God incarnate is a question of belief.......

Its questionable. No one from his day wrote about him while he was living. No record of his crucifixion in roman records. Its all hearsay.

it's no more hearsay than for example, the American Revolution...everything we know about that was also written by people who experienced it......

If the person who penned Luke didn't see what Luke was claiming then its hearsay right from the start. Show me Luke wrote Luke. He probably didn't even know how to write. The bibles were written over hundreds of years.

d'uh.....the various books of the Bible were written over hundreds of years....Genesis and Revelation where not written at the same time....BRILLIG!.......Luke was a contemporary of Jesus Christ.....did the people who wrote about the American Revolution experience every single event that occurred in 1776?........the gospels are communicating something to you about Jesus......you think its about who he had lunch with on Thursday after Passover......that is no more essential than knowing what color Paul Revere's horse was, to understand the American Revolution......

 

[hadit]

Most scholars agree, following what is known as the "Marcan hypothesis",that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when writing their gospels after the Gospel of Mark was completed (written 60-75 CE)

actually most scholars agree that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark and Luke wrote Luke.....given that all three knew each other and that all three gospels were set down in writing after twenty years of shared oral tradition it would be more amazing if there were NOT similarities......

Absolutely there should be similarities. Ask 3 different people to describe an event they all witnessed, and you'll get three different stories with strong similarities but different perspectives and focus.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Most scholars agree, following what is known as the "Marcan hypothesis",that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when writing their gospels after the Gospel of Mark was completed (written 60-75 CE)

actually most scholars agree that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark and Luke wrote Luke.....given that all three knew each other and that all three gospels were set down in writing after twenty years of shared oral tradition it would be more amazing if there were NOT similarities......

Show me most scholars agree with you that mark Luke and Matt penned their own books.

lol.....you've been flapping your lips about "most scholars" here for months and have never provided any documentation of it.....now you think its important?......the gospel of Luke has had Luke's name on it ever since he handed the first copy of it to his followers.......I give you four billion scholars over two thousand years.....what do you have?....a half dozen atheists since 1936?.......

Sometimes the authors wrote in first person sometimes not. Where are the shrines or urns that hold the remains of these papyrus books? Where is Luke mark and Paul's graves? Hell where is Jesus' grave site? Your religions history is sketchy. So are the writings. Now go ask your preacher who wrote the bibles.

Luke and his manuscript are now only dust......Jesus is not.....THAT is what you should have learned from the gospel written by Luke......