Debate here if you deny Jesus is the Creator of the universe born in flesh

[Lionz]

Arian Christians:

Consider the Gospel of John if it’s arguably the central theme of the book and John was closer to Christ than Matthew or Mark or Luke.

Talmudic Jews:

Consider stuff like Isaiah 9:6-7 and Jeremiah 3:16-17 and Ezekiel 43:7 and Daniel 7:13-14 and Zechariah 14:3-4 if all major prophets in the Tanakh pointed to ‎𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 eventually ruling among us with His own throne and His own feet.

Atheists/Materialists:

Consider implications of modern physics if the double slit experiment suggests that consciousness is not simply an emergent property of matter but a fundamental aspect of reality itself.

Muslims:

Consider what Arabia looked like ~1500 years ago and ask yourself who there would have even known about Abrahamic religion if not through history according to the Tanakh/LXX/proto-Masoretic text and early Christian literature. And then ask yourself if it’s wise to trust one man over all Abrahamic prophets who came before him.

Polytheists:

Consider ancient Sumerians and Babylonians and Persians and Egyptians and Greeks and Nordics and Hindus and Mayans and so on. And then ask yourself if there is any ancient polytheistic religion that’s not a twisted version of what Genesis 6:4 told us happened in ancient history and the product of fallen angels descending to earth in rebellion against the Creator of the universe.

[Pack Rat]

Let's see...your God was nailed to a cross.

My God has a large hammer.

Enough said.

Guess we will be expecting our local holy man (HitRed)

[Lionz]

@Pack Rat

A Norse religion guy? Tell me more about what you think is true and if it’s really incompatible with Jesus being the Creator of the universe born among us.

[Pack Rat]

@Pack Rat

A Norse religion guy? Tell me more about what you think is true and if it’s really incompatible with Jesus being the Creator of the universe born among us.

Tell you what's incompatible with Our Lord Jesus. Trump!

[karel]

no god at all, its about as fake as don lemmon

[ConfederateSS]

-----------But more interesting .............ALL AROUND THE WORLD......DIFFERENT CULTURES HAVE ONE STORY...IN COMMON...A MASSIVE FLOOD COVERING THE EARTH/EVERYTHING... THEY HAD NEVER HEARD OF THE BIBLE........ ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[jusplay4fun]

Arian Christians:

Consider the Gospel of John if it’s arguably the central theme of the book and John was closer to Christ than Matthew or Mark or Luke.

(...)
Atheists/Materialists:

Consider implications of modern physics if the double slit experiment suggests that consciousness is not simply an emergent property of matter but a fundamental aspect of reality itself.

I will add to this discussion.

First, you say Arian Christian:
Realize that Arian Christian is really, ultimately a FAKE Christian:

What Makes Arianism Such a Dangerous Heresy?
Christians have debated many things over the centuries. However, one of their earliest debates, one that some consider the first proper heresy that the church faced, was over an idea called Arianism.

Christians have debated many things over the centuries. However, one of their earliest debates, one that some consider the first proper heresy that the church faced, was over an idea called Arianism.

What Is a Heresy?
Heresy is a disagreement on doctrine about a fundamental aspect of the Christian faith. It puts a man-made, self-chosen doctrine in place of the truth. In 2 Peter 2, Peter says, “false prophets brought in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them” (emphasis added). (...)

Christians have debated many things over the centuries. However, one of their earliest debates, one that some consider the first proper heresy that the church faced, was over an idea called Arianism.

What Is a Heresy?
Heresy is a disagreement on doctrine about a fundamental aspect of the Christian faith. It puts a man-made, self-chosen doctrine in place of the truth. In 2 Peter 2, Peter says, “false prophets brought in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them” (emphasis added).

Heresy is distinct from blasphemy because blasphemy is insulting or showing a lack of reverence for God. Blasphemy is an outright contempt or flippancy toward God. Heresy, meanwhile, might be a genuine attempt to explain a mystery of the faith in a way that makes sense to humans. Most analogies for the Trinity fall into this category. The Trinity is a doctrine that is hard to comprehend from a human point of view. While it is essentially mysterious, there are right ways to understand it and wrong ways to understand it. (...)

Who Is Arianism Named For?
Arianism is named for Arius, a main proponent of the idea that Jesus was God’s first and greatest creation. He was a prominent teacher in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early fourth century. He made his case at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, arguably the most important of the early church’s councils. He was condemned as a heretic because his belief undermined the Trinity.

Arianism was one of the main topics at the Council of Nicaea. The council sought to clearly define the Trinity in a way that combatted Arianism and earlier heresies about the Trinity. The definition they came up with was that Jesus was “Very God of Very God,” “Begotten, not made,” and “of one substance with the Father.”

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/cults ... eresy.html

Be warned: the above website had LOT of pop-up ads. You may to research the matter yourself.

btw: I have read about the heresy of Arianism before today, so I see no need to offer more support that this is true, that the Church, at the important Council of Nicaea, declared Arianism a heresy.

On the main point, about the Gospel of John, I basically agree with you.
1) We are rather sure (and now it become a matter of Faith, and not JUST History and Science) that the Apostle that Jesus loved, John, is the author of the Gospel of John. He indeed was close to Jesus, being one of the Twelve.

btw: the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew is in question, and much more so than the other 3 Gospels. There is a good body of evidence that the author of Matthew is NOT Matthew, another one of the Twelve.

2) We are rather sure that John wrote his Gospel near the end of his LONG LIFE. He is, as I best recall, the only one of the Twelve, one of the Apostles, who did not die the death of a martyr. His central question is "Who is Jesus"? His Gospel is not written in the manner of a timeline, but around some themes as John explores this question and offers answers. Even the start of his Gospel is DIFFERENT, than the three Synoptic Gospels: "In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." (<< from my memory)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

John 1: 1-5

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
The Gospel according to John is quite different in character from the three synoptic gospels. It is highly literary and symbolic. It does not follow the same order or reproduce the same stories as the synoptic gospels. To a much greater degree, it is the product of a developed theological reflection and grows out of a different circle and tradition. It was probably written in the 90s of the first century.

The Gospel of John begins with a magnificent prologue, which states many of the major themes and motifs of the gospel, much as an overture does for a musical work. The prologue proclaims Jesus as the preexistent and incarnate Word of God who has revealed the Father to us. The rest of the first chapter forms the introduction to the gospel proper and consists of the Baptist’s testimony about Jesus (there is no baptism of Jesus in this gospel—John simply points him out as the Lamb of God), followed by stories of the call of the first disciples, in which various titles predicated of Jesus in the early church are presented.

The gospel narrative contains a series of “signs”—the gospel’s word for the wondrous deeds of Jesus. The author is primarily interested in the significance of these deeds, and so interprets them for the reader by various reflections, narratives, and discourses. The first sign is the transformation of water into wine at Cana (Jn 2:1–11)

https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/0 (NO ADS here, btw)

As far as Young's double slit experiment, I will await further clarification of what the Lionz wants to discuss here. I am reading at least one book NOW on this concept, of

consciousness is not simply an emergent property of matter but a fundamental aspect of reality itself.

[Lionz]

@Pack Rat

I guess POTUS is the little horn.

Watch out for UFO related stuff to really blow up this year and for fallen angels to claim to be primate evolving space aliens or similar.

[Lionz]

@karel

So are you a completely secular thinking atheist who thinks consciousness is derived from the brain? What do you make of the double slit experiment?

[Lionz]

@ConfederateSS

There’s some amazing global flood evidence huh? See charts on top of page here?:

http://ancientnostalgia.weebly.com/flood.html

[Lionz]

@jusplay4fun

There might actually be some pretty compelling evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew and even composed it in Hebrew.

[jusplay4fun]

@jusplay4fun

There might actually be some pretty compelling evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew and even composed it in Hebrew.

Please cite your evidence, LionZ.

I will say upfront that we will NEVER likely settle the question of the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew. GIven that, here are a few things I found:

AI Summary

This AI-generated answer is powered by OpenAI. AI-generated content may sometimes contain inaccurate, incomplete, or biased information, so make sure you do additional research. You should not rely on this feature for medical, financial, or legal advice.

To understand the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew, consider the following points:

Traditionally attributed to Matthew, one of Jesus' twelve apostles.
Written in Greek, likely between 70-100 AD.
Emphasizes Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.
Contains unique material not found in the other Gospels.
Reflects a Jewish perspective, addressing a Jewish audience.
Early church fathers, like Papias, affirmed Matthew's authorship.

Arguments against Matthew as the author
1. Papias’ statement can’t be talking about the text we call the Gospel of Matthew.

Despite the ambiguity of Papias’ claim about Matthew, one thing is clear: he’s saying Matthew was working with a text in Hebrew or Aramaic (whether he wrote it or compiled it), and others gave us the Greek version (whether they translated or interpreted it).

The problem scholars have with Papias’ statement is that the work we call The Gospel of Matthew reads like a Greek original, not a translation or interpretation of a text that was originally written in another language. That being said, it is possible that Matthew wrote or compiled another work—possibly a collection of Jesus’ sayings or a complete gospel—in Hebrew or Aramaic, and then wrote a separate, original Greek edition later. A Jewish man working as a tax collector for the Roman government certainly could have been proficient in both languages.

Most scholars believe the authors of Matthew and Luke wrote using Mark and some combination of other sources, and some believe Papias may be indicating that Matthew wrote one of these undiscovered source texts.

2. A tax collector wouldn’t emphasize Jewish ritual or the Law.

If the Gospel of Matthew was written by a tax collector, the gospel couldn’t have such intimate knowledge of the Law—because tax collectors were religious outsiders. This could arguably be addressed by the use of sources, but there may be more reason to believe the author was not a tax collector.

3. Matthew 13:52 could suggest the author was a converted scribe or Pharisee.

“He said to them, ‘Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.’” —Matthew 13:52

Is Jesus using this parable (and the author recording it) as a nod to the author’s conversion? If the author of Matthew is a teacher of the Law who has become a disciple, it could explain the gospel’s familiarity with the Law and Jewish rituals. The Gospel of Matthew constantly reveals how Jesus’ life and ministry fulfilled prophesies does appear to present “the old treasures” along with the new.

4. Most scholars believe Matthew borrowed material from Mark.

The similarities between the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark—including using the same wording to describe the same events in the same general order—have led most scholars to believe the author of Matthew used the Gospel of Mark as a source.

A man named John Mark is believed to be the author of the Gospel of Mark (more on that next), and he wasn’t an apostle. Would Matthew the tax collector, an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry, use the written account of someone who wasn’t there to write his own?

It sounds pretty unlikely, but it’s actually possible—there’s good reason to believe John Mark wrote Peter’s version of the events, which Matthew would certainly be willing to reference. Still, this is an argument worth considering.

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-gospels

The same article cited just above also makes the case that the author of the Gospel of Matthew is indeed the tax collector called Matthew (or Levi).

and more:

It was originally written anonymously, as we know from our earliest manuscripts which have no title and no author’s name at all. The title was only added in the early 2nd century CE, decades after it was written.

In addition, Walter Wilson, in his commentary on Matthew, suggests that the absence of an authorial signature may show the author did not think of it as his own individual perspective but rather as a construction by the author’s community. (...)

So how did we get this title?
According to the 4th-century church historian Eusebius, a 2nd-century bishop named Papias claimed to have known the author of the Gospel of John. Papias said that Matthew, an apostle named only in the Gospel of Matthew (9:9-13), had recorded sayings of Jesus in Hebrew. Most scholars now discount this idea, but the traditional name seems to have come from this reference.

https://www.bartehrman.com/who-wrote-th ... f-matthew/

[karel]

@karel

So are you a completely secular thinking atheist who thinks consciousness is derived from the brain? What do you make of the double slit experiment?

im not a atheist, my choice to believe what i believe

[ConfederateSS]

----------------There is a church where wood from NOAH'S ARK.....was made into a CROSS....with all sorts of jewels.....Near where the ARK was found.....I believe it was THE SHOW IN SEARCH OF......Leonard Nimoy of STAR TREK fame hosted .....showed THE AREA and THE CROSS...... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[Lionz]

Beware academia if we have a novus ordo seclorum boldly proclaimed right on US dollar bills next to occultic symbolism associated with freemasonry and Egypt.

“nov.us ADJ 1 1 NOM S M POS
novus, nova -um, novior -or -us, novissimus -a -um ADJ [XXXAX]
new, fresh, young; unusual, extraordinary; (novae res, f. pl. = revolution);

ordo N 3 1 NOM S M
ordo N 3 1 VOC S M
ordo, ordinis N (3rd) M [XXXAX]
row, order/rank; succession; series; class; bank (oars); order (of monks) (Bee)

Word mod cl/cul
An internal 'cl' might be rendered by 'cul'
secul.orum N 2 2 GEN P N
seculum, seculi N (2nd) N [EEXCM] Later
world/universe; secular/temporal/earthly/worldly affairs/cares/temptation;”
https://archives.nd.edu/words.html

“2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against YHWH, and against his anointed, saying,

2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: YHWH shall have them in derision.”

[Lionz]

@justplay4fun

Compare what you were told with what I was told if I just got this: “The Greek text of Matthew contains structures that appear to be translated from Hebrew or Aramaic, rather than being original Greek.”

Also who says that a Jewish tax collector would not still try to obey the Mosaic law? Do you not find what you quoted to be pretty weak even if you ignore Psalm 2 and the whole notion that the devil is the prince of this world with major influence over academia? Think about how fast Christianity spread if a 63 CE fire as far away as the Italian peninsula was blamed on Christians by the emperor.

[jusplay4fun]

@justplay4fun

Compare what you were told with what I was told if I just got this: “The Greek text of Matthew contains structures that appear to be translated from Hebrew or Aramaic, rather than being original Greek.”

Also who says that a Jewish tax collector would not still try to obey the Mosaic law? Do you not find what you quoted to be pretty weak even if you ignore Psalm 2 and the whole notion that the devil is the prince of this world with major influence over academia? Think about how fast Christianity spread if a 63 CE fire as far away as the Italian peninsula was blamed on Christians by the emperor.

Honestly, much of what you say here is not very clear to me and certainly offers little support for your main point about the Gospel of Matthew. "Think"...."if" ..."appears"........."if I ignore"......... are not convincing. AND that last sentence about the 63 CE fire makes almost NO Sense to me. The emperor lived on the Italian penisula, in Rome, RIGHT? Some may have had another home elsewhere in what is now Italy, but still on the Italian penisula, RIGHT??

Do you want to try again, Lionz? You made NOT ONE cogent argument, as far as I am concerned. There is almost nothing for me to refute because what you posted is not coherent nor cogent.

In your previous post, you quote early Church Fathers; that is fine. I already referenced the first one you quote, Papias. I think my point that the first one to offer an opinion on the matter, Papias, set the tone and precedence of what many after him preached on the origin of the Gospel of Matthew. As I said already, I doubt anyone can now PROVE who is the author to any level of certainty. Scholars FROM Academia have debated the matter for MANY years and offer many opinions on this matter.

And I do not understand the relevancy of Psalm 1:1-4. Do you want to explain THAT connection? "the kings of the earth" are NOT now offering opinions on the authorship of Matthew.

[Lionz]

@jusplayforfun

Matthew shows knowledge of Torah and Matthew wouldn’t have knowledge of Torah because he used to be a tax collector at some point? What else needs to be said if what you copied and pasted argues that?

[karel]

is this church?

[Lionz]

@karel

Don’t US politics get boring to you? Haha

[jusplay4fun]

@justplay4fun

Matthew shows knowledge of Torah and Matthew wouldn’t have knowledge of Torah because he used to be a tax collector at some point? What else needs to be said if what you copied and pasted argues that?

You failed to answer ANY of the questions that I posed. Try AGAIN?

Most of the writers of the New Testament show knowledge of the Torah (part of what Christians call the Old Testament). That statement about Matthew that you made PROVES NOTHING, Lionz, especially about the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew.

My sources are GOOD and here is another that supports all my key points:

Mo

st scholars view the gospel of Matthew as a work of the second generation of Christians, though it draws on the memory of the first generation of Jesus's disciples.[51]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Again, we will likely:
1) never know the actual authorship of Matthew or and most books of the Bible, and
2) there are arguments that can be made for BOTH points, that Matthew, one of the twelve, and EQUALLY or even MORE convincing arguments that the author was NOT that Apostle, Matthew.

I have said both key points already. NOTHING Lionz posted since adequately REFUTES any of this.

[Lionz]

@jusplay4fun

What do you find compelling about what you posted from Zondervan Academic in the first place if not what it says about Matthew being a tax collector and something about an alleged intimate knowledge of the Law (whatever that means)? Try not to get too personal and emotional about all this.

[jusplay4fun]

@jusplay4fun

What do you find compelling about what you posted from Zondervan Academic in the first place if not what it says about Matthew being a tax collector and something about an alleged intimate knowledge of the Law (whatever that means)? Try not to get too personal and emotional about all this.

I am NOT. Compelling? Better than what you posted; and I answered the matter that you FAILED to address, again, Lionz. TRY again. There is NOTHING Cogent nor Compelling of your cursory answer to my claims of the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew.

I answered your questions and refuted your Claim; you did NOT do so with my REFUTATION. PERIOD.

[Lionz]

@jusplay4fun

How about no hard feelings. I propose we be friends even if we got off on the wrong foot. Props if you stand by the notion that Christ is the Creator who was born among us.

I should have just stuck to what Zondervan said without jumping to a lesson concerned with the devil being the prince of this world and academia being compromised and we can get back to that kind of discussion later maybe.

Do you want me to address 1-4 in your original message in which you laid stuff out from Zondervan? Can we do it in peace if it’s not really worth a heated argument over? I guess neither one of us know who really wrote Matthew if we are completely honest and it’s not worth a shouting match about.

1) Matthew might have been able to write in both Hebrew and Greek regardless, but what suggests Matthew reads like a Greek original if I can just counter with something like this and neither of us are experts in Greek?: “The Greek text of Matthew contains structures that appear to be translated from Hebrew or Aramaic, rather than being original Greek.”

2) Don’t take this as a shot at you personally, but I find this comment absurd or something like that: “If the Gospel of Matthew was written by a tax collector, the gospel couldn’t have such intimate knowledge of the Law—because tax collectors were religious outsiders.” Huh? Can you help me understand an argument here? Tax collectors couldn’t understand enough about Torah to say what little is said about Torah in the so called Gospel of Matthew? We are talking about a work that could have been several written decades after Matthew no longer being a tax collector regardless. And I don’t think being a tax collector and knowing about the Mosaic law are incompatible anyway.

3) It references Matthew 13:52 and then says this?: “Is Jesus using this parable (and the author recording it) as a nod to the author’s conversion?” Huh? Why would anyone assume that if it’s not even indicated in the text like it was a personal message to the author? This comes across to me like someone trying to confirm some personal head canon or something.

4) This might be the strongest of the four even if your source goes on to say there’s good reason to believe Mark wrote Peter’s version of the events and that Matthew would certainly be willing to reference it anyway.

[jusplay4fun]

It is NOT personal, Lionz; it never has been. It is a civil discussion that will have NO WINNER. It only took me THREE times to ask for you to offer some specificity to your overall theme.

Okay, you finally answered the points I made in ONE of my sources. You finally took time to actually, point by point, discuss the issues. And we are not closer to "the Truth" are we? Much of what we both said and quoted is speculative, at Best. And you also clarified your additional issues that were, quite frankly, confusing and NOT relevant about the authorship of the Gospel(s).

Can you admit that, that some or even much of our points are SPECULATIVE? And that much of what we learned and quoted is NOT cogent. I DID; can you, Lionz?

Honestly, we will never REALLY KNOW with any degree of certainty (not Scientifically nor Historically) and so we must rely ULTIMATELY on Faith as to the TRUE Nature and meaning of Jesus Christ. I will say (and this may seem to be BRAGGING; if it is, so be it) that I figured out THIS a LONG time ago. I did not need to spend a lifetime to realize this point. I had applied Occam's Razor. I got to the Critical realization when I was a young man and that did not shake my Faith. Rather, this questioning and consideration made my Faith Stronger, the Faith passed on to me over MANY generations by my Fathers and Family and my Church.

Does the identity of the exact person who wrote the Gospel of Matthew (or any Gospel) impact my Beliefs and my Faith? Hopefully it is OBVIOUS that my answer is CLEARLY NO.

And to take this entire thread to another level, I live my Faith each and every day. I try to follow the Commandments of the Lord and I try to help others, in what I do in the Classroom, in ALL my daily interactions, in how I pray and how I study Scripture, and in my several ministries. That is what we are called to do and be as Christians, in MY VIEW.