Is the Gospel of Matthew a clever fake ?

wobble

The answer to the above question hinges on when the gospel was actually written. many scholars feel it was written some time after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E

If this is so, it is a clever fake, pretending to have been written earlier by an eye-witness to the events, or someone close to an eye-witness. It would not be unique in this, many such "Gospels" exist.

The clever construction comes in not mentioning the death of James in circa 62, and talking of the Temple and its functions, i.e raising tax, etc, as though the Temple still stood.

For believing JW's this has huge implications as this means, if true, that the prophecy of the Temples destruction was more than likely an invention of the writer, at least we cannot know it was not.

So all arguments about The Generation (Luke being derivative of Matthew) become irrelevant !

What do you think ? (Leo ? )

OnTheWayOut

What do I think? All 4 Gospels were written after 70 C.E.. All 4 Gospels were not written by the people who are given credit for their writing.

Psychotic Parrot

Yeah, all of the gospels were probably written in the late 1st century, to believe they were written earlier requires a pro-christian agenda.

jaguarbass

What do I think? I think bible scholars tend to doubt and disbelieve the bible.

It makes me think if you study the bible and research and think about it you end up not believing it.

It makes me wonder why somebody would go into the business of disproving a book?

Thats what you do if your a bible scholar you go into the business of disproving the bible, which seems kind of crazy.

They always say follow the money and you will find the truth.

So for some there is more money to be made discrediting and disproving the bible than proving it.

So how do these bible scholars who do not believe the bible make their money?

They must make it by publishing books that prove the bible is not true.

And people buy them because people are looking for loopholes.

And many people dont want to be controlled or manipulated.

There are some bible scholars that believe the bible and put forth a lot of effort to prove it is true, the institute for

creation research comes to mind.

You have preachers who read the bible and preach about it and quote it and say it is so,

then you have sholars who dont preach about it but study it and say it is not so and write books about it not being so.

I think we were made to be smart enough to do a lot of things, but stupid enough not to see the big picture

and what is going on. Thats what the Sumerian text say.

Either way some people are making a lot of money writing about what they think about the bible.

Personally, I'll try and error on the side of the bible. There is a biger pay off If the bible is true.

And not being a witness any more or belonging to any cult or religion not being controlled by anyone or anything

that I am aware of I dont have much to loose if the bible is wrong.

There is something more going on than everything just came from nothing, but I cant put my finger on it.

And the bible and Jesus is a popular explanation that I find more credible than life just poped up out of the primordial soup.

But an alternate explanation of what is going on which I give some credence and consideration to is found in the Book

Slave Species of God by Michael Tillinger based on the works of Zechariah Sitchin.

Psychotic Parrot

Yeah, & evolutionists all want to prove that Adam & Eve never existed right? And of course, christian apologists have no agenda, they don't want to prove the bible right, they'll just follow the evidence unbiasedly to wherever it takes them! Am i right?

You are a waste of a brain.

P.S. Oh & what the hell has the validity of the bible got to do with abiogenesis? Why do apologists always go off on such stupid unrelated dumbass god of the gaps tangents. They can never stay on topic can they, to them the path from abiogenesis to some jewish carpenter in the bronze age middle east is just a couple of steps.

notverylikely

Mad Sweeney

The middle one is my favorite: "Ta dah!"

designs

All 4 Gospels contain obvious insertions of Church Liturgy, Dogma, and excerpts from Hymns.

What has survived is an editors version of a good Jew.

Terry

Either way some people are making a lot of money writing about what they think about the bible.

Personally, I'll try and error on the side of the bible. There is a biger pay off If the bible is true.

A "successful" religious book sells under 40,000 copies. An actual scholarly book only sells to libraries and a few academics. There is hardly

"big money" to be made. Bart Ehrman's books come closest because people were ready for a no-nonsense insider look at the condition of bible

authenticity by a top scholar.

That's number one.

Secondly, you say you prefer to err on the side of the Bible and the payoff is better. All I can say to you is that the difference between a gambler who has a sickness and a gambler who earns a living is that the winning gambler knows exactly when to cut his losses.

The "sunk cost fallacy" is at work: "I've come this far and invested this much of my life---I may as well go all the way and hope for a payoff."

You, my friend, are drawing to an inside straight and going "all in."

undercover

"The belief that a comic jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree..."

And Christians call Scientology a cult...

Is the Gospel of Matthew a clever fake ?

Share this