PS - If Matthew was written by Matthew why does he rely on Mark for the account of his own conversion?
I can't imagine not believing in God.
by MsGrowingGirl20 643 Replies latest members private
-
-
still thinking
there is no "Jesus." Else, he would ANSWER everyone CALLING on him. - shelby
I came to know that "Jesus" has never done anything for me... because there is no such person. - Shelby
WOW! .....cofty
LOL...not only do most of the world NOT believe in Jesus, but even the ones that do are wrong...just as well we have Aguest to clarify what the TRUTH is....otherwise the whole planet would be doomed!
-
PSacramento
You have that exactly backwards. Until there is proof that the gospels were written by who people claim, there is no reason to believe it, is there?
As much reason as believing what was written by others ( historical figures) was writren by them.
We have the writings of the Apostolic fathers that attribute the gospels to those I mentioned, unless we have evidence that shows they are incorrect, we have to go with them.
Of course, they are referring to the manuscripts of THEIR time, not the ones we have in our posession so...
One must always account for scribal issues, such as copying and editing.
-
EntirelyPossible
We have the writings of the Apostolic fathers that attribute the gospels to those I mentioned, unless we have evidence that shows they are incorrect, we have to go with them.
No. We don't.
-
PSacramento
PS - If Matthew was written by Matthew why does he rely on Mark for the account of his own conversion?
Why not?
Why not use an exsting tradtion when expanding on it or use it to fill in any missing pieces you may have.
It may be that Matthew was not always around ( it is an incorrect assumption that the 12 were ALWAYS with Jesus) or it may be that Matthew dicated His Gospel to another and the writer combined it with what he knew of Mark.
Something very common in those days.
Or, as some suggest, Matthew may have been written first.
-
still thinking
Of course it is evidence. It is just not evidence for you. It is just not the KIND of evidence that you WANT....tec
wow, the word 'evidence' used three times in one sentence, your claim...must be true.
-
PSacramento
No. We don't.
Historically speaking, why not?
We do that with other historical writings.
Who wrote about Alexander the great? how do we knwo that person was the one who did the writing? what was his source and who wrote that?
-
EntirelyPossible
PS - If Matthew was written by Matthew why does he rely on Mark for the account of his own conversion?
Maybe it's just really hard to write about how much another man touched you in so many ways.
-
EntirelyPossible
Who wrote about Alexander the great
I have no idea. See? It's easy, I am not making claims with no proof and insisting we have to accept them
-
cofty
PS - You are much better than that.
It may be that Matthew was not always around
How could Matthew not be around for Matthew's conversion?
The gospel named after Mark was written first. In this account we have a brief account of Matthew Levi's conversion.
The gospel named after Matthew was written later. When the author came to describe Matthew's own conversion instead of giving a personal account he copied Mark's words.
Where did your critical thinking skills go?