davidylan:

I really don't understand this thread . . .

The title hints that it is likely to be a discussion on "what it takes to be a christian" YET there is ABSOLUTELY NO DEEP DISCUSSION on salvation, faith, the cross, the Holy Spirit, even Jesus Christ Himself. Infact i cant count more than 3-4 bible verses in total!

Rather we are more pre-occupied with "reincarnation"? How is this even an issue that warrants more than 2 lines in response? The bible is categorically clear on what happens to man AFTER death - judgement.

A major problem i find among modern "christians" of today is the tendency to feel the need to sound overly scholarly when they discuss the bible. The gospels as we know it today was handed to us by tanners, fishermen and itinerant travelers who had no better than a few yrs of homeschooling at best. But these were men filled with the Holy Ghost and imbued with power to preach to the salvation of the souls of even kings and princes. No wonder our churches are now mere monuments to man's ego . . .

We are still on the first page and only the first couple of questions have been asked.  There is plenty of time for 'salvation, faith, the cross . . ' etc.  Or better still why don't you pose some questions based on these yourself.  

Besides no one here has said that scholarship leads to salvation.  There's nothing wrong with being scholarly, but there is definately plenty wrong with idiocy and ignorance when discussing the bible.

Pastor AIO:

We are still on the first page and only the first couple of questions have been asked.  There is plenty of time for 'salvation, faith, the cross . . ' etc.  Or better still why don't you pose some questions based on these yourself.  

This is a weak excuse at best . . . this is just a repeat ad nauseam of similar threads . . .

Infact the very first questions posed here by deep sight were these - 1. What do you make of the sacrifice on the cross. Redemption through that sacrifice.

2. Are you of the view that non-christians may be saved.

Both, which are the very basis of the christian faith, were summarily ignored with the exception of a few terse comments.

- there is no "plenty of time" for salvation and the cross . . . without those 2 there is nothing like christianity and the bible is a waste of time. you might as well read Dan Brown's latest book or take a course in anthropology.

Krayola:

well, there goes the thread . . . Up in smoke. It was only a matter of time.   

Krayola my man! The thread's not smoking as yet, just enjoying some noise in certain quarters!

Krayola:

Can u please give us a few examples?

Yes, after the smoke has cleared.

Dear davidylan,

Thank you for your concerns and being honest enough to assert that you don't understand this thread. The topic may be a bit misleading ('what it takes to be a Christian'), and I saw that early enough - yet I chose to leave it as that, being very thankful that Chrisbenogor would have chosen to cleverly construct it that way. Perhaps you should have tried to see where this thread was coming from (click on link) - and you'd understand why it has gone the way it is.

In my very first post, I tried to alert the reader (especially Christians) about what is intended here. Whatever it could be, it was not a platform for preaching "salvation, faith, the cross, the Holy Spirit, even Jesus Christ Himself." Rather, Chris had categorically left a disclaimer in post#2 as to what posters and readers alike should expect -

        'Before we go on I want to make an appeal to all who post on this thread,
         my aim is to understand how viaro sees things and ask questions,
         where I am not clear. I will try my very best to make you see that my intentions
         are that and nothing more.'

He requested politely from the other thread to draw some answers from me about various issues in Christianity - and I obliged. Subsequently, very early here I stated several things:

        'Yet, it is important to observe that my views and understanding may not satisfy
         a whole lot of people at any stretch. .  and I'd be first to nod from the onset that
         there would be problems with some of the comments I'd be sharing.
         However, whatever you read from me is not definitive or conclusive for the totality
         of Christianity for anyone, believers and unbelievers alike.'

If the purpose of this thread was to preach "salvation, faith, the cross, the Holy Spirit, even Jesus Christ Himself", I could see the point in your protestation. But is it not possible that you complain that way because you had missed the basis of this thread from the onset?

Now, this remark is somehow funny:

davidylan:

A major problem i find among modern "christians" of today is the tendency to feel the need to sound overly scholarly when they discuss the bible. The gospels as we know it today was handed to us by tanners, fishermen and itinerant travelers who had no better than a few yrs of homeschooling at best. But these were men filled with the Holy Ghost and imbued with power to preach to the salvation of the souls of even kings and princes. No wonder our churches are now mere monuments to man's ego . . .

First, david, I'm not responsible for your declamations about the state of any monuments. Second, you are too quickly forgetting the very fact that about 50% of the New Testament were written by a very scholarly man who himself had sat at the feet of scholars - Paul, the apostle! He is one who was soundly educated and not a fisher man supposedly writing on chalk slates! Even one of the 'fishermen', Peter, on whose behalf you had argued, had himself categorically acknowledged that some of the things which Paul had written are hard to be understood - not because the latter was not communicating, but because many of us today are too scared to wake up and really come to terms with reality! Luke, again, was not an illiterate - he was an educated physician!

When Christians become too reactionary as you, davidylan, they unwittingly poison the well and leave themselves none-the-wiser. This was what I'd feared all along and made the comment that I was being careful "for the sake of other Christians and deeply religious people whose sensitivities they protect with all alacrity." I anticipated that coming out in a bit more detail about my own views would cause riots among many such folks.

davidylan:

where is your evidence against?

The evidence is in the gospels themselves. . .example according to the tradition mathew the disciple of jesus wrote the gospel of matthew but if you read the gospel of matthew itself  you will see the evidence that the gospel was written by some one else and ascribed to matthew. . . .Here is how the gospel narrates matthew's first meeting with jesus and how he was called to be a disciples of jesus. . . .

Mat 9: 9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.
Mat 9:10[b] While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house[/b], many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples.  

This is NOT matthew the disciple of jesus writing or narrating this story but another person writting a story about how matthew meet jesus because the person writing this story refers to matthew in the third person matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person. . . . . this is some body writing a story about matthew not matthew. . .besides there is no where in the gospel of mathhew were the author revels who he is or claims any authorship. . . .  

Compare this to paul. . . here is paul in galatians. . .

Gal 1: 6[b] I am[/b] astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel

Here the writer who is said to be paul is referring to himself in the first person. . . . .

The church fathers such as Papias, Irenaeus , Pantaenus, and Origen were the ones who said that matthew wrote the gospel of matthew but they did not provide any evidence for it beside making that claim. . . . .

@Pastor AIO,

From mazaje's answer about the authorship of Matthew, perhaps you can now see why I hinted in my reply to yours (post #25) that many people who try to criticise the Biblical documents do not exactly know how to approach their criticism. Let me exemplify:

If someone is going to draw the same conclusions as mazaje did about Matthew, the first thing that clearly comes to mind is this: what type of literary criticism has he employed to bring him to that conclusion? And even if he could point to any single type (eg., greek literary criticism and/or psychoanalytic literary criticism), what would be the results?

He makes the claim that - 'because the person writing this story refers to matthew in the third person matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person', blah-blah. Does this gentleman know anything about any type of literary criticism? How does he know for a fact that Matthew 'will not write about himself in the 3rd person'? What made him draw such assertive conclusions? Did he personally meet Matthew in person to know that the same Matthew could never write about himself in the 3rd person? Why do people like to draw such brash conclusions?

It is a fact in greek literary criticism that authors could refer to themselves in either the first, second, or third persons. This is evident in the Gospels as well as the epistles of the NT. Take Paul, for instance - we know that he referred to himself in various ways including both first and third persons:

             'I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, . . .
              . . . such an one caught up to the third heaven.'
              2 Corinthians 12:1-10

Some may read this passage and assume Paul is speaking about someone else. No, he was speaking about himself in such a manner that the reader might miss the point. That is just one example among several. In the same way, John used that literary style in the Gospel that bears his name; and the argument that Matthew's narrative being in third person cast doubts about its authorship is baseless and empty. The person who makes such assertions understands next to nothing about literary criticisms.

I just wanted to point out the basis of why I replied the way I did in post #25 to yours in mentioning the matter of literary criticism, and the above is just one example.

Hello Viaro,

Doing a great job here!  May  I ask a triplet of questions:

1)  Is there anything or evidence that could convince you that Christianity (or the main claims of Christinty) is false? Would you change your mind if such evidence is brought forward?


2)  Is there any message or moral teaching that was uniquely original to Christ and that continues to guide and influence people today?


3)  Had you been one of Jesus's cohorts and witness his trial, would you have voted for his freedom or for his conviction and execution?



Much obliged!

Hi huxley,

Thank you for your questions; and I shall try and be as honest as can be managed.

huxley:

1)  Is there anything or evidence that could convince you that Christianity (or the main claims of Christinty) is false?

I don't know if any such thing could convince me. If I knew, you would not be asking me. But that you asked is a good thing; and it would mean indeed that you already knew what the main claims of Christianity are, so that you have some evidence as such to first falsify them one and all, before asking the next necessary question, viz -

Would you change your mind if such evidence is brought forward?

The only thing that would change my mind is if I had lied to myself about the personal experience I had when I trusted Christ as my Lord and Saviour. If the person who wants to change my mind cannot undo that experience, he would not be able to change my mind.

2)  Is there any message or moral teaching that was uniquely original to Christ and that continues to guide and influence people today?

This is similar to AIO's question about the intrinsic value of God's Word to me; and my answer is yes. For one, I find it unique indeed that Christ would be the only Person who fits the Biblical prophecies about the Messiah. This does not mean that there is no derivatives about the concept of a messiah; but 'the Messiah' as in Christ's case is unique both in its prophetic evaluation and the uniqueness of His life. There are many other things that people may derive from Christ as influencing their lives, no doubt about that. But for me, the examples I gave have a tremendous impact on my daily experience.

3)  Had you been one of Jesus's cohorts and witness his trial, would you have voted for his freedom or for his conviction and execution?

I don't know what I would have done. If you're asking me to hazard a guess, I probably would have voted for His freedom; or again, I might most probably had voted for His condemnation. Either way, it is impossible for me to vividly cast myself back in time to know exactly what my persuasions might have been.

viaro:

Hi huxley,

Thank you for your questions; and I shall try and be as honest as can be managed.

I don't know if any such thing could convince me. If I knew, you would not be asking me. But that you asked is a good thing; and it would mean indeed that you already knew what the main claims of Christianity are, so that you have some evidence as such to first falsify them one and all, before asking the next necessary question, viz -

The only thing that would change my mind is if I had lied to myself about the personal experience I had when I trusted Christ as my Lord and Saviour. If the person who wants to change my mind cannot undo that experience, he would not be able to change my mind.

Think about this hypothetically, not more than that. Supposing we find some bones in some old cavern in Israel and it is dated and DNA-tested (etc, etc, etc) and found to be the remains of Jesus 100%. I know this is a far-feteched hypothetical scenario, but let's assume that some day, the technology were to be available to make such a conclusion.   Would your belief in the ressurection remain intact?

viaro:

This is similar to AIO's question about the intrinsic value of God's Word to me; and my answer is yes. For one, I find it unique indeed that Christ would be the only Person who fits the Biblical prophecies about the Messiah. This does not mean that there is no derivatives about the concept of a messiah; but 'the Messiah' as in Christ's case is unique both in its prophetic evaluation and the uniqueness of His life. There are many other things that people may derive from Christ as influencing their lives, no doubt about that. But for me, the examples I gave have a tremendous impact on my daily experience.

Pardon me, but I was after a moral message or teaching of Jesus. Something a bit like "Humans MUST not enslave other Humans".  Is it conceivable that a god came and lived with humans on this earth for about 30 years and made no such profound and universal moral message?

viaro:

I don't know what I would have done. If you're asking me to hazard a guess, I probably would have voted for His freedom; or again, I might most probably had voted for His condemnation. Either way, it is impossible for me to vividly cast myself back in time to know exactly what my persuasions might have been.

I understand - if you were back there at the time, there is no knowing which side one would definitely have favoured.  But chances are good that ALL his followers at the time must have been calling for his freedom, because they believed him to be innocent of the charges levelled against him.  It makes no sense to shout for the conviction of someone you believe to be innocent.

Looking at it today, do you believe Jesus was guilty or innocent of the charges?  Do you think he should have been exonerated or convicted of the charges?

viaro:

@Pastor AIO,

From mazaje's answer about the authorship of Matthew, perhaps you can now see why I hinted in my reply to yours (post #25) that many people who try to criticise the Biblical documents do not exactly know how to approach their criticism. Let me exemplify:

If someone is going to draw the same conclusions as mazaje did about Matthew, the first thing that clearly comes to mind is this: what type of literary criticism has he employed to bring him to that conclusion? And even if he could point to any single type (eg., greek literary criticism and/or psychoanalytic literary criticism), what would be the results?

All these terms like greek literary criticisms are just baseless apologetics tactics that make no meaning and do no justice to the topic being discussed at all. . . .  

He makes the claim that - 'because the person writing this story refers to matthew in the third person matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person', blah-blah. Does this gentleman know anything about any type of literary criticism? How does he know for a fact that Matthew 'will not write about himself in the 3rd person'? What made him draw such assertive conclusions? Did he personally meet Matthew in person to know that the same Matthew could never write about himself in the 3rd person? Why do people like to draw such brash conclusions?

You believe that matthew wrote the gospels based on no evidence at all but because people such as Papias, Irenaeus , Pantaenus, and Origen all attributed the gospels to him. . . .The gospel of matthew was anonymously written and was later said to be written by matthew by other people. . . .The author of the gospel did not say who he was. . .if the Papias, Irenaeus and co had decided to name the document the gospel according to andrew I know you will be here making the same case for the authorship for andrew. . . .

It is a fact in greek literary criticism that authors could refer to themselves in either the first, second, or third persons. This is evident in the Gospels as well as the epistles of the NT. Take Paul, for instance - we know that he referred to himself in various ways including both first and third persons:

             'I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, . . .
              . . . such an one caught up to the third heaven.'
              2 Corinthians 12:1-10


Some may read this passage and assume Paul is speaking about someone else. No, he was speaking about himself in such a manner that the reader might miss the point. That is just one example among several. In the same way, John used that literary style in the Gospel that bears his name; and the argument that Matthew's narrative being in third person cast doubts about its authorship is baseless and empty. The person who makes such assertions understands next to nothing about literary criticisms.

You have provided no evidence at all to show that paul was not referring to another person you ONLY made a claim with out any evidence at all to support your claim. . . .you are yet to provide any evidence to show that matthew wrote the gospels from the document itself. . .but you point to my evidence as baseless when you own claims are more baseless. . . .  

I just wanted to point out the basis of why I replied the way I did in post #25 to yours in mentioning the matter of literary criticism, and the above is just one example.

All these are excuses apologist use to confuse people and themselves. . . .The fact remains that no body can point to the authorship of the book from the document itself and reading the document alone tells any objective reader that reads it that it was not written by the person the document claims wrote it because the person that wrote it did not state who he was and who ever wrote it wrote it in the 3rd person. . . .People later attributed the gospel to matthew, there is no where in the gospel where matthew claimed any authorship of the gospel. . . .

viaro:

Now, this remark is somehow funny:

First, david, I'm not responsible for your declamations about the state of any monuments. Second, you are too quickly forgetting the very fact that about 50% of the New Testament were written by a very scholarly man who himself had sat at the feet of scholars - Paul, the apostle! He is one who was soundly educated and not a fisher man supposedly writing on chalk slates! Even one of the 'fishermen', Peter, on whose behalf you had argued, had himself categorically acknowledged that some of the things which Paul had written are hard to be understood - not because the latter was not communicating, but because many of us today are too scared to wake up and really come to terms with reality! Luke, again, was not an illiterate - he was an educated physician!

1. Paul was a "scholar" because that was what it took to be a leader in the jewish system of worship - endless and irrelevant study. The pharisees ended up no better for it and completely missed the purpose of Christ's coming . . . they were too busy focusing on the law.

Paul's scholarship was not what made him the great apostle he ended up being to the gentile if not the likes of Peter or James shld never have written a letter that we still cherish in the bible today.

Here is Paul's own summation of his scholarly endeavours - Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Phil 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

It took Paul years of hard study to be a pharisee . . . all it took was a spiritual encounter with Christ and 3 days with Anais (a blind man) to put him on the road to the epistles that we see today.

Sorry, his scholarship had absolutely nothing to do with the epistles that he wrote.

Luke was a doctor true . . . but neither was Matthew, Mark or John . . . their gospels are just as good if not better.

Again his scholarship had NOTHING to with his writing of the gospel.

viaro:

When Christians become too reactionary as you, davidylan, they unwittingly poison the well and leave themselves none-the-wiser. This was what I'd feared all along and made the comment that I was being careful "for the sake of other Christians and deeply religious people whose sensitivities they protect with all alacrity." I anticipated that coming out in a bit more detail about my own views would cause riots among many such folks.

I'm sorry if you see my point as "reactionary" . . . i respectfully beg to disagree. And it is a symptom of the dying church that we now have christians who feel it is more important to make "peace" and be "tolerant" of those who despise the Lord and His suffering than to boldly stand for the truth of the gospel.

Christ was way way more reactionary . . . John the baptist was the same . . . they didnt spend time courting the praise of those who hate the bible and all it stands for.

If you feel it is better to prevent a riot than to come out and be bold in declaring what salvation is all about then i just wonder what sort of christians we have become in the last days.

The muslim or the atheist is not mindful of my own feelings when he declares his faith or faithlessness . . . we on the other hand bend over backward not to offend them . . .

Isnt it so sad? First we removed the cross from our churches, then we took away the pulpit, now we hardly mention the name of Jesus (we just say God so everyone is happy), we covet the praise and glory of those who hate the cross . . .

May the Lord help us.

By all means enjoy your endless genealogies.

Some comments on the authorship of Matthew:

Gospel scholar have know for a long time that the Gospels do not bear the names of their true authors and today hardly and bible scholars deny this, theistic and secular scholars universally agree on this point. There are several points that converge to this conclusion;

1) The date of redaction. The date of composition of the earliest gospel is put at after 70 AD, between 70 and 100 AD. Mark is thought to be the first gospel. Matthew is thought to be written between 90 -135 AD. If these disciples were born on or around the time of Jesus's birth, they would have been between 70 - 90 when they began their writing career. This is most unlikely - it was extremely rare for people to live to this age, never mind begin to compose such works at this age.

2) The internal evidence from the text itself does not suggest an autobiography from the disciples.

@huxley, let me start with your last:

huxley:

2) The internal evidence from the text itself does not suggest an autobiography from the disciples.

You can see that the Gospel was not intended as an 'autobiography' (a book about your life that you write yourself). Matthew's intention was not writing about himself, so how should anyone be making it into what it is not?

Gospel scholar have know for a long time that the Gospels do not bear the names of their true authors and today hardly and bible scholars deny this, theistic and secular scholars universally agree on this point. There are several points that converge to this conclusion;

There's no need to assume that I'd be gullible to assume that any document of the Gospels had a name appended to it the way we sign our autographs to our own books. But is that in itself enough to even begin to argue about the authorship of Matthew? That scholars have said this and that has not made anything cogent in this regard, other than several efforts to reproduce the same borrowed arguments from such 'scholars'.

1) The date of redaction. The date of composition of the earliest gospel is put at after 70 AD, between 70 and 100 AD. Mark is thought to be the first gospel. Matthew is thought to be written between 90 -135 AD. If these disciples were born on or around the time of Jesus's birth, they would have been between 70 - 90 when they began their writing career. This is most unlikely - it was extremely rare for people to live to this age, never mind begin to compose such works at this age.

That again is a non starter. Unless you want to believe that almost everyone who lived in that aged must by some necessity die before 70 years of age, I don't think that argument has any substance to it. Within the documents themselves, we find several indications of people who lived beyond that bracket of age - Anna was an 84 years old prophetess (Luke 2:37).

huxley:

Think about this hypothetically, not more than that. Supposing we find some bones in some old cavern in Israel and it is dated and DNA-tested (etc, etc, etc) and found to be the remains of Jesus 100%. I know this is a far-feteched hypothetical scenario, but let's assume that some day, the technology were to be available to make such a conclusion.   Would your belief in the ressurection remain intact?

Yes, my belief in the resurrection would not be affected by that.

Pardon me, but I was after a moral message or teaching of Jesus. Something a bit like "Humans MUST not enslave other Humans".  Is it conceivable that a god came and lived with humans on this earth for about 30 years and made no such profound and universal moral message?

There is a universality in our humanity, no doubt. I have also hinted about this in stating that the knowledge and worship of God is not original with the Jewish people - which would by extension include the Jews of Jesus' day. We don't have to look far to find many similarities in the example you gave, and it is remarkable that such ideals of morality are not stand-alone prescriptions (as far as I know).

However, as far as my life is affected, I can't speak for the whole of the Christian people or any other religious group. I made that point plain earlier in my first post on this thread. Which in the same way, I pointed out that the uniqueness of the life of Christ in connection with the prophecies concerning the 'Messiah' is one example I find as unique among others.

I understand - if you were back there at the time, there is no knowing which side one would definitely have favoured.  But chances are good that ALL his followers at the time must have been calling for his freedom, because they believed him to be innocent of the charges levelled against him.  It makes no sense to shout for the conviction of someone you believe to be innocent.

If I have to go by the Biblical texts, I would not say that 'ALL' of His followers would have called for His freedom. First, many of His disciples abandoned Him even before he went to the Cross; then He Himself also stated that many (including His apostles) would be scattered and abandon Him; and at the time of His arrest, many who had walked with Him also called out for His crucifixion. These are all plain to see in the Gospels. Which was why I would not know which verdict to personally vote for if I were there back then.

Looking at it today, do you believe Jesus was guilty or innocent of the charges?  Do you think he should have been exonerated or convicted of the charges?

Lol, huxley, I should first believe that you know what you want to argue. But be that as it may, I do not believe that He was guilty - and there are several reasons for this. Most serious among the lot of reasons is that He had to die on the Cross as One who was innocent - that is pivotal in the message that He brought. If He had died as guilty of the charges, that would have been the end of His mission and message and nothing more than a grand and interesting epic. But it didn't stop there, and that is why His message and mission lives on.

Na wa see as dem hijack my thread   its all good anyway I am happy the insults have not started flying yet. I just hope we will be able to get back to where we are.
Oh and by the way since Krayola is studying religion do you think he might at least have a source to what these scholars actually say about the gospel. Krayola your first assignment get us something about the gospels ASAP we need reference from books and respected scholars.

Chrisbenogor:

Na wa see as dem hijack my thread   its all good anyway I am happy the insults have not started flying yet. I just hope we will be able to get back to where we are.
Oh and by the way since Krayola is studying religion do you think he might at least have a source to what these scholars actually say about the gospel. Krayola your first assignment get us something about the gospels ASAP we need reference from books and respected scholars.

he doesnt, we've been there before. Besides, taking a course or 2 isnt the same as "studying religion".

I daresay my entire skepticism of threads like this stems from one important fact - atheists who start threads like this are NOT interested in getting saved, they are simply interested in irrelevant, abstract discussions whose main goal is to discredit the christian faith.

@mazaje, thank you for your reactions, most of which are quite unnecessary. As far as I'm concerned, you made no sensible defence of your assertions - and we could spend the rest of the many pages of this thread shouting across the fence. What I would have hoped to see is how you draw a good basis for your argument, not immaturely assert that something is irrelevant because you find it too challenging to even begin to think through it.

mazaje:

All these terms like greek literary criticisms are just baseless apologetics tactics that make no meaning and do no justice to the topic being discussed at all. . . .

There. Your assertion that it makes no meaning is roundly suggesting that you have made no meaning to your arguments. If you're going to critique a matter, one should ask how you proceed. if you just wish to assert empty arguments for your persuasions, we can understand and sympathise with that and leave you shouting alone. If, however, I am going to lay my case carefully, readers would like to see what tools of criticism I have employed before I pass anything intelligent to them. Where you failed to do that, it does not surprise me that you hastily concluded they have no meaning. That's quite poor and sad on your part.

You believe that matthew wrote the gospels based on no evidence at all but because people such as Papias, Irenaeus , Pantaenus, and Origen all attributed the gospels to him. . . .The gospel of matthew was anonymously written and was later said to be written by matthew by other people. . . .The author of the gospel did not say who he was. . .if the Papias, Irenaeus and co had decided to name the document the gospel according to andrew I know you will be here making the same case for the authorship for andrew. . . .

I drew from your own assertion of trying to cast doubts only on the basis of whether the author could never have addressed himself in the 3rd person. That is simply unintelligent and a poor reflection of the literary style of writers in that period. Your assertion was lacking any seriousness and that was why I pointed its weakness and then demonstrated my persuasion with an example within the constraints of the people you mentioned in particular - Matthew and Paul.

You have provided no evidence at all to show that paul was not referring to another person you ONLY made a claim with out any evidence at all to support your claim. . . .you are yet to provide any evidence to show that matthew wrote the gospels from the document itself. . .but you point to my evidence as baseless when you own claims are more baseless. . . .

 

I have provided a demonstration to fault your assertion as too presumptive and totally naive. How did I do that? By pointing out that authors in that time could refer to themselves in either the first, second or third persons. Your assertion was rather that Matthew WILL NOT do thus and thus - to which I asked if you had been with Matthew personally to know that he could never have done such! Making assertions that completely that is unethically evading literary style and content is not helpful, but you're entitled to shouting about it as much as you may.

All these are excuses apologist use to confuse people and themselves. . . .The fact remains that no body can point to the authorship of the book from the document itself and reading the document alone tells any objective reader that reads it that it was not written by the person the document claims wrote it because the person that wrote it did not state who he was and who ever wrote it wrote it in the 3rd person. . . .People later attributed the gospel to matthew, there is no where in the gospel where matthew claimed any authorship of the gospel. . . .  

There was nothing confusing in what I tried to explain in my post addressing pastor AIO. Having outlined some of those well known tools of scholarly criticisms in post #25, I had come to this page to show him an example of what I meant rather than just stating it and failing to demonstrate what I meant. Nobody would be confused there except those who just want to shout their vacant assertions and consider all things confusing simply because they have no clue what they're talking about.

davidylan:

he doesnt, we've been there before. Besides, taking a course or 2 isnt the same as "studying religion".

I daresay my entire skepticism of threads like this stems from one important fact - atheists who start threads like this are NOT interested in getting saved, they are simply interested in irrelevant, abstract discussions whose main goal is to discredit the christian faith.

David I have long learned that dealing with you is like playing with a saber tooth tiger while walking on egg shells.
Pardon me if I thought he studies religion, that said I think he is closer to the scholarly sources than any of us, if you have got stuff you bring it on too  
Stop being grumpy dude, sit back and relax.  

Oh by the way I changed the name of the thread you happy now?

Chrisbenogor:

David I have long learned that dealing with you is like playing with a saber tooth tiger while walking on egg shells.
Pardon me if I thought he studies religion, that said I think he is closer to the scholarly sources than any of us, if you have got stuff you bring it on too  
Stop being grumpy dude, sit back and relax.  

Oh by the way I changed the name of the thread you happy now?

he is not. I once had course to discuss authorship of some biblical books with him and he had absolutely nothing other than a few sources copied from the web.

I'm not being grumpy really . . . just making a point based on my general experience here. You would agree with me that your purpose for this thread wasnt really a personal honest desire to learn the truth about the gospel.

The majority of you come here with minds already made up that the bible is false and christianity is a myth . . . i just find it odd that so many "christians" go along for the ride responding to your ridiculous questions while ignoring the weightier matters.

I for one dont understand how questions as regards the cross get sidetracked in favour of wondering what Christ thought about reincarnation. Is that even a point the bible pays attention to?

davidylan:

he is not. I once had course to discuss authorship of some biblical books with him and he had absolutely nothing other than a few sources copied from the web.

I'm not being grumpy really . . . just making a point based on my general experience here. You would agree with me that your purpose for this thread wasnt really a personal honest desire to learn the truth about the gospel.

The majority of you come here with minds already made up that the bible is false and christianity is a myth . . . i just find it odd that so many "christians" go along for the ride responding to your ridiculous questions while ignoring the weightier matters.

I for one dont understand how questions as regards the cross get sidetracked in favour of wondering what Christ thought about reincarnation. Is that even a point the bible pays attention to?

That above my dear brother is why you have got things wrong, I stated my intentions earlier in the thread and I have asked him two questions already (show me where I plan to attack christianity again). I do not think Viaro has the "Truth about the gospel" I just want to know how he views issues in christianity is that a bad thing?
One thing I hope is that there are christians reading this thread, they will be happy that viaro is one of them.

Chrisbenogor:

That above my dear brother is why you have got things wrong, I stated my intentions earlier in the thread and I have asked him two questions already (show me where I plan to attack christianity again). I do not think Viaro has the "Truth about the gospel" I just want to know how he views issues in christianity is that a bad thing?
One thing I hope is that there are christians reading this thread, they will be happy that viaro is one of them.

Of course if they are the Joel Osteen type they probably would be. You know the sweet and candy type of "christianity" that is in vogue these days. All about "love", "tolerance" and being "open minded" . . . it doesnt matter what the bible says no?

That aside . . . if you dont think viaro has the truth about the gospel then why are you interested in his views on christianity? Doesnt that sound a little odd? I guess my point in a nutshell is this - what is the point of all these long long boring threads that are long on pretended "scholarship" but really leave the reader wondering what the thread is meant to say?

Another point that i must make is the tendency for you and your ilk to move from one topic to the other almost abruptly when you get stuck on an issue. Its like you simply have a laundry list of "questions" to keep you arguing as long as possible without resolving anything.

davidylan:

what is the point of all these long long boring threads that are long on pretended "scholarship" but really leave the reader wondering what the thread is meant to say?

David, why do you waste so much time on threads you consider boring, and a waste of time?

Just ignore us, and leave us to our fallacies. Your thesis needs your time, i am sure.

We, of course, are aware that the definition of an interesting thread will be one in which we all accept God as being into ritual human sacrifice (Golgotha).

Strange thing is - if we all accepted your dogma, life would be boring for your o so combative soul, wouldn't it?

Ain't life interesting!

davidylan:

1. Paul was a "scholar" because that was what it took to be a leader in the jewish system of worship - endless and irrelevant study. The pharisees ended up no better for it and completely missed the purpose of Christ's coming . . . they were too busy focusing on the law.

Paul's scholarship was not what made him the great apostle he ended up being to the gentile if not the likes of Peter or James shld never have written a letter that we still cherish in the bible today.

Oh dear me, david! I had long wished better for you, but my hopes are eroding at the speed of light! What is the essence of what you're trying to argue in all this? Whatever you argue, it takes nothing away from the fact that Paul was indeed a scholar. Now if scholarship by any stretch disqualifies anybody, Paul would have had to go back and become an illiterate fisherman before Christ would look in his direction, let alone call him to be an apostle! I don't know if your style of engaging people is to suppose those you interact with are by default to be fishermen, or illiterate, or bozos. But just what have you added to the point I made other than being unnecessarily reactive?

Here is Paul's own summation of his scholarly endeavours - Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Phil 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

Em, Davidylan, with all respects, please get off the high horse. I already know those verses by heart and understand them well enough. Your quoting them is appreciated, but probably because you assume you alone are aware of them! Oh dear! I don't think even in all that you can point to any verse where Paul argued for his illiteracy! None. His humility is not to be confused for illiteracy.

It took Paul years of hard study to be a pharisee . . . all it took was a spiritual encounter with Christ and 3 days with Anais (a blind man) to put him on the road to the epistles that we see today.

How long did it take Paul to be an illiterate just to qualify him for authoring those epistles?

Sorry, his scholarship had absolutely nothing to do with the epistles that he wrote.

It had everything to do with it.

Luke was a doctor true . . . but neither was Matthew, Mark or John . . . their gospels are just as good if not better.

I'm trying to steady you here, so hang on. What is the essence of your arguments, really? It may appertain to either of these 3 things:

(a) that you're determined to show illiteracy is better than scholarship?

(b) that your audience should by default please you in becoming bozos?

(c) that the above is exemplified in what you see as illiterate authors of the Bible?

If that's what you're on about, let's gee it 3 cheers:

            Yay!

            Yay again!

            Yay-yay-yay!!

Happy now? Okay. In your world, you can argue day and night for a conversion to the stone age - I would first have to wonder why you ever went to school to obtain a Ph.D. If being a holder of any scholarship helps you to reason about the Christian faith with anyone, what then is your grouse about the scholarship of Paul and others?

Again his scholarship had NOTHING to with his writing of the gospel.

It had absolutely everything to do with them.

I'm sorry if you see my point as "reactionary" . . . i respectfully beg to disagree. And it is a symptom of the dying church that we now have christians who feel it is more important to make "peace" and be "tolerant" of those who despise the Lord and His suffering than to boldly stand for the truth of the gospel.

First, I am not responsible for your complaints. That is my own way of saying that "I respectfully beg to disagree with you". Second, as far as we can be serious as Christians, we know that the Bible we carry on our heads (rather than in our hearts)  plainly tell us to FOLLOW PEACE WITH ALL MEN (Heb. 12:14), and to LIVE PEACEABLY WITH ALL MEN (Rom. 12:18). If you have another version advocating for terrorism, please let us know. What you always fail to understand is the reality that Christians can engage in healthy dialogues with non-Christians without having to please you in your campaign.

Christ was way way more reactionary . . . John the baptist was the same . . . they didnt spend time courting the praise of those who hate the bible and all it stands for.

You don't even come close to resembling them, did nobody ever tell you that before, or you just ignored them when they did? Christ did not send us out to go and either convert anyone to become illiterates, or to go converting them by hating their brown necks, or to go around eating locusts and wild honey with a courtesy of "You brood of vipers!" if it fits your ego, good on you. It doesn't fit me, it won't fit me, has never fitted me, and I'm not in a hurry to be molded that way.

If you feel it is better to prevent a riot than to come out and be bold in declaring what salvation is all about then i just wonder what sort of christians we have become in the last days.

I can be bold in declaring salvation for all men, not by spamming threads with some misplaced zeal. If that was what Chris had invited me to do here, then I would have failed in my previous posts. But he clearly showed that was not it - and we have several threads where people both discuss, debate and preach the Gospel.

The muslim or the atheist is not mindful of my own feelings when he declares his faith or faithlessness . . . we on the other hand bend over backward not to offend them . . .

I don't think that deliberately going out to offend anybody (theist or atheist) is what Christianity is about. Rather, to make that a concern at all is suspect and makes one suppose you're scared of having any one question your calcified belief system. People may not respect your feelings if your 'formula 1' speeds readily to damn them than discuss with them.

Isnt it so sad? First we removed the cross from our churches, then we took away the pulpit, now we hardly mention the name of Jesus (we just say God so everyone is happy), we covet the praise and glory of those who hate the cross . . .

Is that what you do? I'm so sad to learn about it. I think several times in my dialogue with others, I have mentioned the name of Jesus and declared that He is my Saviour and Lord. Did you miss that?

Wow david, viaro
Looks like the thread has settled down now, I will wait a few more and then move on.

Current scholarship on Jesus suggests Jesus himself may have been a pharisee. Pharisees were not a homogeneous group. . . . These things are complicated and the problem with discussing this stuff on NL is that everyone is an expert and it turns ugly. I'll post videos of my class on Jesus when I'm done in December. I really don't wanna debate this stuff. It's too much work and I don't feel like puttin in all the effort and just get shitted on for it.



http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1912

http://amapedia.amazon.com/view/Pharisees,+Scribes+and+Sadducees+in+Palestinian+Society+(The+Biblical+Resource+Series)/id=774605

Here. . . I just typed out a section on Pharisees from my textbook - "Recovering Jesus" by Thomas R Neufeld. The spam bot is probably going to eat it up cause it's pretty long.

PHARISEES

Perhaps the most important movement or group in Jewish society, and the most prevalent within the gospel narratives, are the Pharisees. We are not exactly sure how or when they emerged. In fact, there is a great deal of ambiguity around much of what we think we know about the Pharisees, first, because we have relatively little information on them and, second, because the sources we do have give historians much the same difficulties they have with the gospels as sources for historical information on Jesus. That is, we have sources that have very strong interests, either to commend the Pharisees (Josephus speaks of them as a “philosophy” akin to Gentile “schools” that commended a particular way of life) or to discredit them (New testament writers show them with few exceptions in opposition to Jesus). To complicate matters, our sources are sometimes of uncertain date (traditions preserved in rabbinic literature). So everything that follows should be considered as at best a distillation of majority opinion under sharp review.

The Pharisees likely emerged during the Hasmonean period as a group of law-abiding Jews committed to observing God’s way, perhaps with designs of changing society to conform with their views on what that might mean, especially with regard to tithing and purity laws. Their name is likely a derivative of the root prsh (‘to separate, interpret”). Some of them might have been priests, but many were likely laypeople who, nevertheless, took on the discipline of priestly purity as a life of piety. They were not likely members of the ruling class, but may well have attempted to play a political role as educators, judges, and officials. The extent of their impact on the rest of the society is a matter of some dispute among scholars. According to Josephus, who identifies himself as having been a Pharisee, they numbered around six thousand during the time of Jesus. Paul the apostle identifies himself as a Pharisee (Phil. 3:5; see also Acts 23:6; 26:5), which indicates that there were Pharisees in the regions beyond Palestine. However great or small their importance in the larger story, there is little question that Pharisees played a very significant role in relation to the Jesus movement.

If later rabbinic traditions go back to the Pharisees, and rabbinic literature does indicate a strong connection, then we might see among Pharisees the beginnings of a tradition of interpretation of Torah called Halakah, a kind of “oral Torah.” This is sometimes also called a “hedge” around the Torah:

'Moses received the Torah from Sinai and committed it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets; and the prophets committed it to the men of the Great Congregation. These said three things:
“Be deliberate in judgement”;
“Raise up many disciples”; and
“Make a hedge for the Torah.” (Mishnah, tractate Aboth 1.1)'

The halakah was an ever-growing collection of more or less binding interpretations of the law intended to make  the Torah livable within the changing circumstances of life, but also to safeguard the torah from human manipulation and infractions. These traditions of interpretation and application were gathered up some centuries later in the Talmud (Made up of Mishnah and Gemara [i.e. rules and interpretive discussion]). This may be what in the New Testament is referred to as “the tradition of the elders” (e.g. Mark 7: 3-4). One source of controversy between jesus and the Pharisees appears to have been over the function of this oral law, in effect, over how to interpret the Torah in relation to everyday life.

It was apparently in Pharasaic circles that some of the most intense hopes for divine intervention, as well as some of the most radical visions for the future, were nurtured and formulated. One of the most striking of these hopes was the belief in the resurrection of the dead. (For an example that not all Jews held to such ideas, see the account of Paul’s arraignment before the Jewish leaders in Acts 23: 1-10.)  In this the Pharisees and the movement around Jesus were close indeed.

Due to the largely negative portrayal they receive in the New Testament, Pharisees have become in Christian circles, at least until recent times, a virtual byword for legalism and intolerance. Is this fair? Hardly. Whereas there were tensions between Pharisees and a less observant population, Pharisees were generally respected. A measure of their importance for Jewish society is that after the terrible calamity of the war with rome in 66-70CE, when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed, it was Pharisees, practiced in devotion to Torah, who were in position to help the Jewish people get back on their feet and to find a new centre in Torah observance. Rabbinic Judaism has it’s roots in the traditions of the Pharisees.

However unfair the stereotype of legalism is, it is also true that any group, regardless of religion, that is deeply committed to living a life of faithfulness is vulnerable to legalism, hypocrisy and intolerance- or at least being suspected of being intolerant  and hypocritical. The history of Christianity, for example, provides numerous examples of legalism and intolerance. Might legalism, hypocrisy, and intolerance be occupational hazards of all who try hard (harder than those in the surrounding culture) to be good, holy, and acceptable to God?

The desire or Pharisees to please God through the meticulous observance, especially of purity rules, would have necessarily put them on a collision course with less strict and non observant Jews, Perhaps we can empathize with the extreme discomfort of some of them at Jesus’s touching lepers who were ritually contaminated or at his consorting with “sinners” like tax collectors and prostitutes at mealtime. Was he not thereby endangering the fate of the people as a whole by drawing God’s displeasure on them? Since the gospels were written by those who took Jesus’s side in the controversies, we should hardly be surprised that Pharisees do not get what a historian would call a fair shake.

Yet another factor helps us to understand the negative press the Pharisees get in the gospels: the war with Rome in 66-70 CE. It appears that the traditions of the Pharisees left an ever-stronger mark on the Judaism that began to take shape in the decades following that calamity. This was also precisely the period in which the Jesus movement was coming to greater definition. We should not be surprised that there would have been intense debates between Jews who believed Jesus to be the Messiah and the interpreter of the Torah and those who felt the Roman destruction of Jerusalem was proof enough that Jesus could not possibly be the fulfillment of God’s promises and was thus also not to be trusted regarding the interpretation of Torah. Such relations appear to have been acrimonious during Jesus’s own life and would only become more so in the years that followed, as seen in the harsh words of judgment against the Pharisees that Matthew attributes to Jesus (Matthew 23). There is reason to believe that some of that harshness reflects the post 70-CE hostility between, on the one hand, pro-Jesus Jews and their non-Jewish associates and, on the other, the vast majority of Jews, who rejected Jesus and his followers as misguided at best and blasphemously unfaithful to Judaism at worst. The gospels were written exactly during this time.

To summarize: the rather one-sidedly negative depiction of the Pharisees in the gospels may reflect less the battles Jesus himself had with them than the struggles of his followers with those leading the Jewish people after the destruction at Jerusalem. It has also been suggested that the tensions between Jesus and the Pharisees in the New Testament likely reflect tensions among Pharisees and that Jesus himself was a Pharisee. However that may be, it is caution enough not to take the one-sidedly negative portrayal of Pharisees in the gospels at face value.

Great work krayola!

viaro:


I drew from your own assertion of trying to cast doubts only on the basis of whether the author could never have addressed himself in the 3rd person. That is simply unintelligent and a poor reflection of the literary style of writers in that period. Your assertion was lacking any seriousness and that was why I pointed its weakness and then demonstrated my persuasion with an example within the constraints of the people you mentioned in particular - Matthew and Paul.

tually

Actually yout claims are false because even at that time writers used to claim ownership of their works and refer to themselves in the first person when narrating a story. . . . If you read the works of Josephus, Pliny the elder, Tacitus and Philo you will see them addressing themselves in first person in all their writings that are made available to us. . .Here is a part of Pliny's letter to Trajan(written in AD112)

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Here is a part of Josephus writing where he addresses himself in the first person. . .

About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty.
- Antiquity of the Jews, Book XVIII; Flavius Josephus, 94-100 CE

If you read the Annals of Tacitus, The Antiquitit of the jews by Josephus, and the writings of both Pliny the elder and Pliny the younger you will see that they all the authors of the document claimed authorsip of their works and referred to themselves in the first person something the authour of matthew did not do. . .there is no where in the gospel of matthew where the author claimed authorship of his work. . . the FACT remains that no body knows who wrote the gospel of matthew, where it was written and when exactly it was written. . . . Papias was the first person to ascribe the gospel to matthew based on no evidence at all. . . .If he had attributed it to Andrew I know you will be here giving the literary criticism excuse and using it to make the case for authorship by Andrew. . . . .Even at that time authors used to claim authorship of their work and address themselves in the first person. . .I am yet to see any first centuray author beside that of the bible that addresses himself in the 3rd person when writing a narrative. . . . .

I have provided a demonstration to fault your assertion as too presumptive and totally naive. How did I do that? By pointing out that authors in that time could refer to themselves in either the first, second or third persons. Your assertion was rather that Matthew WILL NOT do thus and thus - to which I asked if you had been with Matthew personally to know that he could never have done such! Making assertions that completely that is unethically evading literary style and content is not helpful, but you're entitled to shouting about it as much as you may.

I am sorry you did not give any credible example at all. . . . the example you gave about paul did not wash at all. . . . .

Ok I think the dust has settled now, so I will move on.
3. What do you make of the story of creation in the book of genesis, many schools of thoughts are out there as to how to take genesis, some say symbolic others say otherwise.
(a) Do you agree with the school of thought that say the earth is just a couple of thousand years old?
(b) What is your stand on evolution, is it as a result of faith or having examined the evidence?
(c) If there was irrefutable evidence that man did evolve how would that affect your faith?

^^^^ Hi Chris, please hang on a minute and let me address mazaje's interesting rejoinder.

Hallo mazaje,

I understand where you're coming from, and your arguments are not new to me. Although it is common knowledge that people often borrow other people's arguments and parrot them frequently, it's clear that most of these parroted arguments are neither intelligent nor bear any substance in them to pass for scholarship.

So, please allow me to examine your arguments from a bit scholarly perspective. 'Scholarly', not because that makes me a scholar (which I am not), but because conventional methods are helpful to expose and minimize the weaknesses in personal assertions like yours.

First, let me draw from the pointers you made, and then extrapolate what you have factually missed out.

mazaje:

Actually yout claims are false because even at that time writers used to claim ownership of their works and refer to themselves in the first person when narrating a story. . . . If you read the works of Josephus, Pliny the elder, Tacitus and Philo you will see them addressing themselves in first person in all their writings that are made available to us. . .Here is a part of Pliny's letter to Trajan(written in AD112)

I appreciate your concerns, and yes I'm familiar with the literary style of Pliny, Josephus, Tacitus and Philo. These are good examples of people who left literary works with first person references.

My question to you, mazaje is this: have you ever considered at all that it is possible that writers in earlier centuries have also referred to themselves in the third person?

You may not have ever considered that, and if that is the case, you haven't done any investigative work at all. Pardon me, for if you actually have a clue about literary criticism, you would be the first to recognize that your assertions cheat formal literary conventions. So I shall point out a few things to show how your arguments are unnecessary, inept and maladroit.


Let's go back to your initial assumptions in post #36 to remind ourselves of its essential argument, shall we? Limiting myself to your precise objections in that post, these are your basic arguments:

(a) 'you will see the evidence that the gospel was written by
some one else and ascribed to matthew'

~~ why is that so?

(b) 'because the person writing this story refers to matthew in the third person'

~~ how should that be a problem?

(c) 'matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person'


The statements quoted in (a), (b) and (c) are your arguments taken from post #36; and the bold are mine and only put there to structure your query. What follows are my critical answers to show how untenable and deeply flawed your arguments are.

Answers to your objections

The first line in yours (post #36) is easily laid to rest:

(a) 'you will see the evidence that the gospel was written by
some one else and ascribed to matthew'

You did not give any "evidence". Nada. The verses you quoted (Matt. 9:9 & 10) are not 'the evidence' but a wild unscholarly guess. Anyone reading them will see they do not say what you claimed upon them about having been written by 'someone else'; nor do they say that such a person had 'ascribed' it to Matthew.


(b) 'because the person writing this story refers to matthew in the third person'

This again does not present any special problems at all to establish your argument. Many authors, both in style and content, are know to have referred to themselves in either the first, second, or third person; and readers do not have any difficulty understanding who was being spoken of. You gave good examples of people whose works show those in the first person (such as Pliny, Josephus, Tacitus and Philo). That's great. But I wonder if that was chosen deliberately and conveniently to ignore other works where authors have also referred to themselves in the third person. I shall show an example of this in just a moment when I look at (c) below.


(c) 'matthew will not write about himself in the 3rd person'

Now this is your main contention - that Matthew could not have been the author because the writer refers to Matthew in the third person. That is not even a problem to raise any serious criticism strong enough to establish your argument. This is why:

[list](1) literary examination of any document follows the conventions of what is known as 'textual criticism'; that was why my mention of some literary criticisms in post #25 in the previous page which scholars use in studying any style of writing.

(2) some authors are known to have referred to themselves in the 3rd person, and this is a fact. When this happens, literary critics know such occurences as 'illeism' (the act of referring to oneself in the third person). If this can be shown, then it would confirm the fact that your argument was not carefully and intelligently thought through, as well would make yours inept and maladroit.

(3) Certainly, there are documented examples of 'illeism' in various genres of literary works from early centuries to contemporary times. A simple check online yields several examples, but Julius Caeser is a very good example:

[list]* Julius Caesar is considered the first and perhaps best-known illeist in his work, The Gallic War. "Commentarii de Bello Gallico (English: Commentaries on the Gallic War) is Julius Caesar's firsthand account of the Gallic Wars, written as a third-person narrative." read more from Wikipedia source.[/list][/list]

What is interesting in Julius Caesar's example is that his work was publication between 50s or 40s BC - which is not far from the period of early writers where Gospel authors would not be strangers to writing about themselves in the third person. Again, compare the period 40s - 50s BC with AD112 and you will find that Julius Caesar's illeism (the act of referring to oneself in the third person) is much older than the examples you gave!

Yes, mazaje, there are works earlier than your examples where authors have referred to themselves in the third person, and that is no problem at all for any reader who is not out on a weak campaign.