₦airaland Forum

tctrills:
Trust me, if you and 3 of your friends in secondary school wrote a record of your class from SSS1 to SSS3, we would be reading 3 different records. That the 4 gospels agree more than 80% of the time actually proves the authenticity of the records and writers.

Yet you people say it was inspired by the god. You mean the god couldn't inspire them to write non contradictory accounts?

DeepSight:
A cardinal, I believe.
Albeit along with his father the Pope a most corrupt one.

Oh right,he became a cardinal too.

LordReed:
Yet you people say it was inspired by the god. You mean the god couldn't inspire them to write non contradictory accounts?

The answer is yes. Even if God inspires, he could still allow your imperfections.

DeepSight:
No, it proves that three of them copied from once source which is well known as Q.

So, according to you, if you and your secondary school friend do not have exactly the same account of something your maths teacher did 15 years ago, it means you both copied from one source, which is well known as Q If this is the way you think, no problem.

FreeIgboho:
Of course he was. Very much so. And despite everything and all the obfuscation, his essence comes through intact!

essence?

FreeIgboho:
Reed, plaetton, DeepSight, will not like this one.
Last words of famous atheists. It is only one minute long.
Max and Jano, note what they say about the hell that you don't believe exists

https://youtube.com/shorts/SIiJ6yy0Er8?si=ajtYdiXVHYMubEKH

If I may ask, why were religious people by their side when they died?

Are religious people Grimm reapers?

tctrills:
The answer is yes. Even if God inspires, he could still allow your imperfections.

LoLz. So how is that different from not being inspired by the god?

tctrills:
Objection 1: "Matthew died in 68 CE, but the Gospel was written between 75–100 CE."
Response:
The date range of 75–100 CE is based on modern scholarly estimates, many of which assume Matthew borrowed from Mark and that Mark was written around 70 CE. However, early church tradition — including Papias, Irenaeus, and others — suggest Matthew’s Gospel was written earlier, possibly in the 50s or 60s CE.
Also, dating ancient texts isn’t exact science. If Matthew wrote his Gospel in the 60s CE, before his death (possibly around 68), that fits both his lifespan and the content’s context — especially since Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE is never mentioned as a past event, which you'd expect if it were written after.

Objection 2: "It uses content from Mark, Luke, and Q. That implies a learned scribe, not a fisherman or tax collector."
Response:
First, Matthew wasn't a fisherman — he was a tax collector, a job requiring literacy, numeracy, and record-keeping. He would have been more educated than most of the apostles and perfectly capable of writing or compiling a structured document.
Second, using other sources doesn’t disqualify authorship. If Matthew used Mark and perhaps oral or written traditions (like Q), he may have done so to organize and supplement with his own eyewitness insights. Ancient writers often relied on sources — and it doesn’t mean they weren’t the true authors.

Objection 3: "It was written in Greek, and a first-century Jew wouldn’t write in Greek unless he was a scribe."
Response:
While many Jews in 1st-century Judea spoke Aramaic, Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire, including Galilee. A tax collector like Matthew, who dealt with Roman officials and urban merchants, almost certainly knew Greek.
Moreover, even if Matthew wasn’t fully fluent in written Greek, he could have dictated his Gospel to a scribe or translator — a very common practice in the ancient world. That still preserves his authorship, even if he didn’t physically pen it.


Objection 4: "The Gospel never says it was written by Matthew."
Response:
That’s true — the Gospel of Matthew is anonymous, as are all four Gospels. None of them directly say, “I, John” or “I, Mark.”
However, the early church universally attributed this Gospel to Matthew — and there’s no competing ancient claim for another author. The name “Matthew” is attached to this Gospel as early as the 2nd century, long before modern debates.
Also, the Gospel includes unique details about Matthew’s own calling (Matthew 9:9), and unlike in Mark and Luke, he refers to himself as “Matthew the tax collector” — a humble detail that suggests firsthand authorship.


So while your objections raise good scholarly questions, they don’t disprove Matthew’s authorship. When you weigh:

Early and unanimous church tradition,

Matthew’s background as an educated tax collector,

Common practices like using scribes and sources,

And internal clues in the Gospel itself,

…it’s entirely reasonable — even likely — that Matthew the apostle wrote (or dictated) the Gospel that bears his name.

Wait, did you get this from AI?

LordReed:
Wait, did you get this from AI?

Lol.
You seem to have lost focus. Now you want to change the topic and discuss the source of my info.

Oga, we expect better from you. Please go back and address the points I made and stop looking for a way out.

LordReed:
LoLz. So how is that different from not being inspired by the god?

Let me give you an example from the bible, Moses was given power to speak to the rock for water to flow out instead, he hit the rock and still water came out.
The Lord works come forth despite the imperfections of men.
We also have the Samson example. His imperfections are so clear yet the Lord used him to defeat the enemies of Israel.

The Lord accomplishes his wonders using imperfect men. He did not need to eliminate the mistakes of men to produce the most published book and to tell the story of Jesus Christ to the entire world.

tctrills:
Lol.
You seem to have lost focus. Now you want to change the topic and discuss the source of my info.

Oga, we expect better from you. Please go back and address the points I made and stop looking for a way out.

I am not trying to change the subject, it just reads like an AI output so I want to confirm. Your response won't change my rebuttal.

LordReed:
I am not trying to change the subject, it just reads like an AI output so I want to confirm. Your response won't change my rebuttal.

You are still determined to switch topics. Remember, each time you make a rebuttal and I respond is time spent so please let's not waste time. That is the least we can do.

tctrills:
You are still determined to switch topics. Remember, each time you make a rebuttal and I respond is time spent so please let's not waste time. That is the least we can do.

Your reluctance makes me a little more certain it was AI. Not sure why you are reluctant but ok. I will respond later.

LordReed:
Your reluctance makes me a little more certain it was AI. Not sure why you are reluctant but ok. I will respond later.

Your persistence and insistence to debate the most irrelevant things makes it super clear that you only want to make noise and distract.

LordReed:
Which of the Sir Thomas Scotts? The preacher? the multiple MPs? the cricketer? the army general? The painter? Which one is he referring to? Why do believers never look into some of these things before sharing as if they are true?

DeepSight:
Emotional BS borne of fear of the unknown.
Also mostly unverified/ unverifiable.

Sir Thomas Scotts the atheist.

See, what I don’t understand about you folks is, you know our brains and senses are quite limited. And you know the majority of knowledge are things we don't know that we don’t know. Someone is foretold way in advance as God coming. He comes and says he's the only way to God. All you have to do is believe in him. WHY NOT BELIEVE IN HIM??!! What do.you have to lose?? And WHY would he be lying - he was never after money or anything material. Do you folks really think death is the end of this energy??

tctrills:
Trust me, if you and 3 of your friends in secondary school wrote a record of your class from SSS1 to SSS3, we would be reading 3 different records. That the 4 gospels agree more than 80% of the time actually proves the authenticity of the records and writers.

You really think this accounts for people not being able to remember dead people waking up from their graves and walking around, and all these below?

FreeIgboho:
Sir Thomas Scotts the atheist.

See, what I don’t understand about you folks is, you know our brains and senses are quite limited. And you know the majority of knowledge are things we don't know that we don’t know. Someone is foretold way in advance as God coming. He comes and says he's the only way to God. All you have to do is believe in him. WHY NOT BELIEVE IN HIM??!! What do.you have to lose?? And WHY would he be lying - he was never after money or anything material. Do you folks really think death is the end of this energy??

Which of the over 20 Sir Thomas Scotts in the UK alone was an atheist?

How can you understand when you think your brain is limited? LoLz.

Apparently you aren't striving for understanding you just want to believe. Go ahead nobody is stopping you.

tctrills:
Your persistence and insistence to debate the most irrelevant things makes it super clear that you only want to make noise and distract.

The only one being persistent right now is you. I dunno why it's still bugging you after I have dropped the matter. I said I would respond latter, end of matter.

LordReed:
The only one being persistent right now is you. I dunno why it's still bugging you after I have dropped the matter. I said I would respond latter, end of matter.

Now you have won
We are now discussing something else. Very brilliant move.

tctrills:
Let me give you an example from the bible, Moses was given power to speak to the rock for water to flow out instead, he hit the rock and still water came out.
The Lord works come forth despite the imperfections of men.
We also have the Samson example. His imperfections are so clear yet the Lord used him to defeat the enemies of Israel.

The Lord accomplishes his wonders using imperfect men. He did not need to eliminate the mistakes of men to produce the most published book and to tell the story of Jesus Christ to the entire world.

LoLz. Dude these are stories every bit as fantastical as any other mythological story. There is nothing in thiee stories that make them stand out nor can any of them be evidenced as real.

Ultimately the point is there is no way to distinguish between your Bible authors who you described as inspired and any of the other popular ancient writings. A number of which were at some point part of the Biblical canon which some of you reject.

tctrills:
Now you have won
We are now discussing something else. Very brilliant move.

Dude will you just stop.

FreeIgboho:
You really think this accounts for people not being able to remember dead people waking up from their graves and walking around, and all these below?

I am not sure of your point here.
I believe I have already answered. The example I gave about giving record of what happened in your secondary school 15 years ago still stands

LordReed:
LoLz. Dude these are stories every bit as fantastical as any other mythological story. There is nothing in thiee stories that make them stand out nor can any of them be evidenced as real.

Ultimately the point is there is no way to distinguish between your Bible authors who you described as inspired and any of the other popular ancient writings. A number of which were at some point part of the Biblical canon which some of you reject.

Again you are wrong. Despite the imperfections of the writers, the bible will always stand out. It remains one of the oldest text, most widespread, most respected. It has brought peace and healing to the lives of millions. So you waving it off as just any other book is being shallow. It is serving it's purpose. No book written by man is comparable in terms of reach and influence. No book has brought more positive change. That's more than enough evidence that the bible is special.

LordReed:
Dude will you just stop.

You started the distraction and honestly, I am already tired of it. You are right, let's stop.

tctrills:
You started the distraction and honestly, I am already tired of it. You are right, let's stop.

I started and ended it but you are just going on and on. Matter is over abeg.

LordReed:
I started and ended it but you are just going on and on. Matter is over abeg.

I already said we should stop but you are not so keen

Everyday247:
If I may ask, why were religious people by their side when they died?

Are religious people Grimm reapers?

No, they were NOT surrounded by religious people at all. Research it and you'll find most of these are from disinterested care givers. Like the last words of Steve Jobs: "Oh wow! Oh wow! Oh wow!" and also these below

tctrills:
Again you are wrong. Despite the imperfections of the writers, the bible will always stand out. It remains one of the oldest text, most widespread, most respected. It has brought peace and healing to the lives of millions. So you waving it off as just any other book is being shallow. It is serving it's purpose. No book written by man is comparable in terms of reach and influence. No book has brought more positive change. That's more than enough evidence that the bible is special.

Dude Samson killing Philistines is not bringing anybody peace. As a matter of fact it is part of the reason they are fight in the Middle East.

I dunno if you are aware that Islam has narrowed the gap in terms of population and is projectied to overtake Christian population. At that point if you are still around would you become a Muslim because their book is more popular than yours?

Popularity is not an indicator of truth.

tctrills:
I already said we should stop but you are not so keen

LoLz. Must you respond? Matter over don't respond again abeg. Bwahahahahahaha!

LordReed:
Wait, did you get this from AI?

It can be tiresome. One discussant has been using ChatGTP to discuss with me all day.
I dont say you cant source something from AI oh, but first, indicate so at the end of your quote, and also do not make it your walking stick or tool for all discussion and reasoning on a subject. We are not here to engage robots and anyone of us could equally use AI if we so wanted.

tctrills:
Your persistence and insistence to debate the most irrelevant things makes it super clear that you only want to make noise and distract.

What is so hard in admitting that that was AI?