Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
it is true that Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience, just as Mark wrote for a Greek audience......being members of the same early church it is obvious that they also were aware of each other and being contemporaries of Jesus, its also obvious they experienced many of the same things.....The author of Matthew had obviously gotten his information from Mark's gospel and used them for his own needs. He fashioned his narrative to appeal to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He improved the grammar of Mark's Gospel, corrected what he felt theologically important, and heightened the miracles and magic.
Luke set down the testimony of Peter and the other apostles.....he also knew Paul on a first hand basis......when a court reporter records the testimony of a witness that testimony does not become hearsay......The author of Luke admits himself as an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). Many scholars think the author of Luke lived as a gentile, or at the very least, a Hellenized Jew. Some scholars think that the Gospel of Matthew and Luke came from the Mark gospel and a hypothetical document called "Q" (German Quelle, which means "source"). [Helms; Wilson] . However, since we have no manuscript from Q, no one could possibly determine its author or where or how he got his information or the date of its authorship. Moreover, other scholars challenge its existence and those who do think Q existed have problems explaining it. Again we get faced with unreliable methodology and obscure sources.
d'uh....... Nevertheless, all New Testament writings came well after the alleged death of Jesus
lets be accurate...this should say "a handful of atheist scholars claim he only wrote eight of them".......every one else thinks he wrote all thirteen.....Of the thirteen epistles, bible scholars think he wrote only eight of them
there you have it then.....I have my beliefs, you have yours.....why do you pretend yours have been proven?.......So is your belief in god.
without question....so does all of Christianity, so did the canonizers of the fourth century, so did the church of the first century....who doesn't?.....a handful of atheists......Not true look it up. You think Luke wrote Luke?The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.
the only "scholars" why deny it are the atheist scholars......
no, I merely need to point at it and say "oh look!....something stupid here!".......You need to update wiki then
so if you include Christians among scholars and not just atheists, would that mean that since most scholars DO believe John was the author it puts the matter to rest?......Sorry if MOST SCHOLARS
Bingo......One was written first
????....nothing of the Bible was left out..... What's left out?
If they are theists then like you they aren't being objective.The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.
the only "scholars" why deny it are the atheist scholars......
30 years is a generation. Especially back then.what idiot thinks a generation occurred between Matthew and Mark....both were written within thirty years after Jesus resurrection......according to everyone Randal Helms stands at least a hundredth remove from anyone who knows anything about Biblical scholarship......The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark got written at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, one can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote the gospel simply accepted the story of Jesus without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Historians tell us of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), Mark served as the common element between Matthew and Luke and provided the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666* verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth remove. [Helms]
this is what makes you a fundamentalist atheist.....Typical. An atheist doesn't KNOW anything. They BELIEVE there is no God. A theist BELIEVE'S there is a God. It is called faith. They believe even though there is no evidence, just as an atheist BELIEVE'S even though there once again is no proof. They too are relying on faith.
No one KNOWS anything, there is belief. That's it. An agnostic understands there is no proof and doesn't, in general, care either way. We don't get wrapped up in belief because inherent within that is emotion, and as we all know emotions clutter up the mental landscape.
I'm a geologist.
I only care because I think it is bad for people. You don't, that's your opinion. And the fact is, you don't believe. Because Christians tell us that if we don't accept Jesus we don't go to heaven and we go to hell. You CLEARLY don't believe that or you'd be a believer. Very little difference between you and I other than I don't like religion.
I think that with the facts we have, more people have benefited from religion than have suffered. Compared to atheistic totalitarian socialist regimes the religion induced misery is nothing percentage wise.
Those who suffered certainly suffered just as much, but if you want to see mass murder you have to turn to government to really show you how it's done.
I don't dislike religion. I despise those who abuse it for their own political gain.
Now I see why you don't like atheists and choose to be "agnostic" on this. Its political for you Got it.
I don't like MILITANT atheists. They are every bit as bad as the religious nutters that are out there. A atheist, who keeps his beliefs to himself, I will treat with every bit of respect I do a religious person who likewise keeps his beliefs to himself.
Why can’t atheists just leave theists alone?
- Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrorsthroughout human history. See also: Religiously motivated animosity, violence andoppression and discrimination.
- For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, women’s rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
- Because belief in a god taps into mankind’s natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out ‘God’s plan’ or ‘God’s will’ is a sure-fire way to absolve one’s-self of responsibility for one’s actions. See also: Cituke.
- Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
- Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a person’s mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of ‘devine knowledge’. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress.
and if the sources are atheists like you, they aren't being honest.......If they are theists then like you they aren't being objective.The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.
the only "scholars" why deny it are the atheist scholars......
They actually argued who was right in their interpretations.it is true that Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience, just as Mark wrote for a Greek audience......being members of the same early church it is obvious that they also were aware of each other and being contemporaries of Jesus, its also obvious they experienced many of the same things.....The author of Matthew had obviously gotten his information from Mark's gospel and used them for his own needs. He fashioned his narrative to appeal to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He improved the grammar of Mark's Gospel, corrected what he felt theologically important, and heightened the miracles and magic.
Matthew and Mark were members of the same generation.....30 years is a generation. Especially back then.what idiot thinks a generation occurred between Matthew and Mark....both were written within thirty years after Jesus resurrection......according to everyone Randal Helms stands at least a hundredth remove from anyone who knows anything about Biblical scholarship......The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark got written at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, one can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote the gospel simply accepted the story of Jesus without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Historians tell us of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), Mark served as the common element between Matthew and Luke and provided the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666* verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth remove. [Helms]
According to everyone?
???....you have some evidence they argued?......is the evidence hearsay?......They actually argued who was right in their interpretations.it is true that Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience, just as Mark wrote for a Greek audience......being members of the same early church it is obvious that they also were aware of each other and being contemporaries of Jesus, its also obvious they experienced many of the same things.....The author of Matthew had obviously gotten his information from Mark's gospel and used them for his own needs. He fashioned his narrative to appeal to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He improved the grammar of Mark's Gospel, corrected what he felt theologically important, and heightened the miracles and magic.
.
there you have it then.....I have my beliefs, you have yours.....why do you pretend yours have been proven?.......So is your belief in god.
Your church has whitewashed their real history.???....you have some evidence they argued?......is the evidence hearsay?......They actually argued who was right in their interpretations.it is true that Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience, just as Mark wrote for a Greek audience......being members of the same early church it is obvious that they also were aware of each other and being contemporaries of Jesus, its also obvious they experienced many of the same things.....The author of Matthew had obviously gotten his information from Mark's gospel and used them for his own needs. He fashioned his narrative to appeal to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He improved the grammar of Mark's Gospel, corrected what he felt theologically important, and heightened the miracles and magic.
.
this is what makes you a fundamentalist atheist.....I only care because I think it is bad for people. You don't, that's your opinion. And the fact is, you don't believe. Because Christians tell us that if we don't accept Jesus we don't go to heaven and we go to hell. You CLEARLY don't believe that or you'd be a believer. Very little difference between you and I other than I don't like religion.
I think that with the facts we have, more people have benefited from religion than have suffered. Compared to atheistic totalitarian socialist regimes the religion induced misery is nothing percentage wise.
Those who suffered certainly suffered just as much, but if you want to see mass murder you have to turn to government to really show you how it's done.
I don't dislike religion. I despise those who abuse it for their own political gain.
Now I see why you don't like atheists and choose to be "agnostic" on this. Its political for you Got it.
I don't like MILITANT atheists. They are every bit as bad as the religious nutters that are out there. A atheist, who keeps his beliefs to himself, I will treat with every bit of respect I do a religious person who likewise keeps his beliefs to himself.
Why can’t atheists just leave theists alone?
- Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrorsthroughout human history. See also: Religiously motivated animosity, violence andoppression and discrimination.
- For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, women’s rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
- Because belief in a god taps into mankind’s natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out ‘God’s plan’ or ‘God’s will’ is a sure-fire way to absolve one’s-self of responsibility for one’s actions. See also: Cituke.
- Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
- Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a person’s mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of ‘devine knowledge’. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress.
