What grade would a history teacher give the book of Matthew?

[TruthSeeker1]

If a history teacher were to read the book of "Matthew" and give it a grade based on how accurate a description the author gives of historical events, what kind of grade would the author get?

The author of "Matthew" didn't put his name on the book, or identify himself to his readers. In many cases a book will get a failing grade if it is turned in without a name on it as it is hard to challenge an author's claims when he doesn't identify himself.
Just about 90% of the words in "Matthew" come straight from a book written earlier, the book of "Mark". The author of "Matthew", whomever that might be, doesn't tell his readers that most of the material which he has written came from another's work. In most cases this will be enough to give a failing grade because of the problem with plagiarizing another person's work.

Much of what the author of "Matthew" writes about can't be collaborated with any other materials that were written during this time period. From Herod's supposed killing of the infants, to dead saints rising from graves and walking into Jerusalem, we just cannot corroborate significant events that the author of "Matthew" speaks about.

The author of "Matthew" doesn't name any of his sources. Just where did this author get his information? Other writers in this time period identified sources, so why not the author of "Matthew"? How would someone back then been able to evaluate the information that the author provides if there are not any sources for the information contained in "Matthew"?

Lastly, the author of "Matthew" doesn't tell his readers that the events written about are literal historic events. How do any readers of "Matthew" know that they are supposed to be taking the events described as being literal history if the author doesn't identify the events as such?

Just what kind of grade would a history teacher give the book of Matthew? Should not a book that is purported to be divinely inspired be expected to receive at least a passing grade. Would the book of "Matthew" receive one?

[Biker]

"There are various evidences which suggest that Luke made use of the works of Josephus, and it may well be that the two-part Luke-Acts was inspired by Josephus' two-part book Against Apion, published around A.D. 100." (Schonfield, 1975, p. 35)

Pick your very best one, Goat, and let's see how far it flys. Just your best ONE. Be sure to document carefully the so-called evidence that Luke used what Josephus wrote / said, and why it couldn't be the other way around.

I think we did it in another thread before.
I see no reason to pick the best one or just one.

Yeah,
And we wrecked the argument, it was part of the "redacters didn't know Palestine geography tripe." You and Goat and others continue with this "Tubingen school" NONsense.

Biker

[Goat]

"There are various evidences which suggest that Luke made use of the works of Josephus, and it may well be that the two-part Luke-Acts was inspired by Josephus' two-part book Against Apion, published around A.D. 100." (Schonfield, 1975, p. 35)

Pick your very best one, Goat, and let's see how far it flys. Just your best ONE. Be sure to document carefully the so-called evidence that Luke used what Josephus wrote / said, and why it couldn't be the other way around.

I think we did it in another thread before.
I see no reason to pick the best one or just one.

Yeah,
And we wrecked the argument, it was part of the "redacters didn't know Palestine geography tripe." You and Goat and others continue with this "Tubingen school" NONsense.

Biker

You never were able to give a good explaination about why that is 'nonsense'.
It was a blind excuse.. but you had very little reason or evidence that I felt was valid.

You see, just because you claim something doesn't mean that it is reasonable.. the problems still exists for you.. you just have convinced yourself it doesn't.

[Cathar1950]

"There are various evidences which suggest that Luke made use of the works of Josephus, and it may well be that the two-part Luke-Acts was inspired by Josephus' two-part book Against Apion, published around A.D. 100." (Schonfield, 1975, p. 35)

Pick your very best one, Goat, and let's see how far it flys. Just your best ONE. Be sure to document carefully the so-called evidence that Luke used what Josephus wrote / said, and why it couldn't be the other way around.

I think we did it in another thread before.
I see no reason to pick the best one or just one.

Yeah,
And we wrecked the argument, it was part of the "redacters didn't know Palestine geography tripe." You and Goat and others continue with this "Tubingen school" NONsense.

Biker

It has nothing to do with the Tubingen school if you read Luke's account of the same incident you will see he corrected Mark. Beside just because it comes from the Tubingen school does not disqualify anything. The produced a find bunch of scholars. As one author puts it they started changing the gospels as soon as the started writing them others complained including Bishop Diontsuis 170, Tertullian 160-254 and Orign (185-254). Marcion made his own one cleaned things out he didn't like while some accuse him of creating and editing Paul’s work. Justine Mytyr mixed thing up a bit and combined some to made his own gospel. Now I can give you a few sites that write about Luke’s use of Josephus but it is hard to go back to the library and get the books today. But it is odd that there are no copies or mention of the gospel until the second century when many others were being created.
But Goat is right; you do go to great lengths of illogic that you get from the usual Christian apologists and just copy it as if that settles it.
As Tim Callahan points out, Archer like you refuses to see any contradictions or errors.
“Be fully persuaded in your own mind that ands adequate explanation exist, even though you have not found it. The aerodynamic engineer may not understand how the bumble bee can fly, yet he trusts that there must be an adequate explanation for its performance since, as a matter of fact, it does fly! Even so we may have complete confidence that the divine Author preserved the human author of each book from error or mistake as he wrote the original manuscript of the sacred text. (Archer, 1982)

So you can see your bias makes it impossible to have an honest discussion or debate, as you can never be wrong. But unlike the bumblebee it doesn’t fly. It make it a waste of our time and effort.

[Easyrider]

It has nothing to do with the Tubingen school if you read Luke's account of the same incident you will see he corrected Mark.

What specifically are you talking about? Please cite the scriptures involved and explain how Luke supposedly corrected Mark? I can't give you any credit for these generalized theories of yours.

[Biker]

"There are various evidences which suggest that Luke made use of the works of Josephus, and it may well be that the two-part Luke-Acts was inspired by Josephus' two-part book Against Apion, published around A.D. 100." (Schonfield, 1975, p. 35)

Pick your very best one, Goat, and let's see how far it flys. Just your best ONE. Be sure to document carefully the so-called evidence that Luke used what Josephus wrote / said, and why it couldn't be the other way around.

I think we did it in another thread before.
I see no reason to pick the best one or just one.

Yeah,
And we wrecked the argument, it was part of the "redacters didn't know Palestine geography tripe." You and Goat and others continue with this "Tubingen school" NONsense.

Biker

It has nothing to do with the Tubingen school if you read Luke's account of the same incident you will see he corrected Mark. Beside just because it comes from the Tubingen school does not disqualify anything. The produced a find bunch of scholars. As one author puts it they started changing the gospels as soon as the started writing them others complained including Bishop Diontsuis 170, Tertullian 160-254 and Orign (185-254). Marcion made his own one cleaned things out he didn't like while some accuse him of creating and editing Paul’s work. Justine Mytyr mixed thing up a bit and combined some to made his own gospel. Now I can give you a few sites that write about Luke’s use of Josephus but it is hard to go back to the library and get the books today. But it is odd that there are no copies or mention of the gospel until the second century when many others were being created.
But Goat is right; you do go to great lengths of illogic that you get from the usual Christian apologists and just copy it as if that settles it.
As Tim Callahan points out, Archer like you refuses to see any contradictions or errors.
“Be fully persuaded in your own mind that ands adequate explanation exist, even though you have not found it. The aerodynamic engineer may not understand how the bumble bee can fly, yet he trusts that there must be an adequate explanation for its performance since, as a matter of fact, it does fly! Even so we may have complete confidence that the divine Author preserved the human author of each book from error or mistake as he wrote the original manuscript of the sacred text. (Archer, 1982)

So you can see your bias makes it impossible to have an honest discussion or debate, as you can never be wrong. But unlike the bumblebee it doesn’t fly. It make it a waste of our time and effort.

Cathar,
Wow, where should I start?

"Luke made use of the works of Josephus" [unquote]
I am sure you have solid proof of that? PLEASE PRODUCE.
If any copying was done, wouldn't it make more sense that Josephus copied Luke since Luke was written first? Especially in view of the fact of the absolute accuracy of Lukes Gospel.
Now since Matthew's accurate inerrant Gospel is the subject at hand, I'll remind you of the Biblical "contradictions" thread since it applies.
I, in post 794 gave a concise argument about the truth and accuracy of Messiah Jesus genealogy as it relates Matthew to Luke. Then Easyrider in 801 posted a site: www.biblestudymanuels.net/genealogy_of_Jesus. , which in minute detail explained the two genealogies. Demonstrating the miraculous accuracy of detail in both genealogies. In Matthew as it relates to a Jewish reader, in Luke as it relates to a gentile.Isn't that "Historical accuracy"?
Now as to my "going to great lengths of illogic" and "refuses to see any contradictions"? I don't think I'm illogical or refusing to see anything.
So far I don't see any (so called) "contradictions" or "historical inaccuracy's" in the inerrant word of God. You certainly haven't convinced me.
The word of God is inerrant.
I used to think the word of God was flawed until I really started to research the (so called) "contradictions", and I found out to my surprise, there are no "contradictions" or "errors" as put forth by skeptics. When you really look at them they are not as characterized by the "naysayers".
So as Easyrider said, give it your best shot.

Biker

[Goat]

"There are various evidences which suggest that Luke made use of the works of Josephus, and it may well be that the two-part Luke-Acts was inspired by Josephus' two-part book Against Apion, published around A.D. 100." (Schonfield, 1975, p. 35)

Pick your very best one, Goat, and let's see how far it flys. Just your best ONE. Be sure to document carefully the so-called evidence that Luke used what Josephus wrote / said, and why it couldn't be the other way around.

I think we did it in another thread before.
I see no reason to pick the best one or just one.

Yeah,
And we wrecked the argument, it was part of the "redacters didn't know Palestine geography tripe." You and Goat and others continue with this "Tubingen school" NONsense.

Biker

It has nothing to do with the Tubingen school if you read Luke's account of the same incident you will see he corrected Mark. Beside just because it comes from the Tubingen school does not disqualify anything. The produced a find bunch of scholars. As one author puts it they started changing the gospels as soon as the started writing them others complained including Bishop Diontsuis 170, Tertullian 160-254 and Orign (185-254). Marcion made his own one cleaned things out he didn't like while some accuse him of creating and editing Paul’s work. Justine Mytyr mixed thing up a bit and combined some to made his own gospel. Now I can give you a few sites that write about Luke’s use of Josephus but it is hard to go back to the library and get the books today. But it is odd that there are no copies or mention of the gospel until the second century when many others were being created.
But Goat is right; you do go to great lengths of illogic that you get from the usual Christian apologists and just copy it as if that settles it.
As Tim Callahan points out, Archer like you refuses to see any contradictions or errors.
“Be fully persuaded in your own mind that ands adequate explanation exist, even though you have not found it. The aerodynamic engineer may not understand how the bumble bee can fly, yet he trusts that there must be an adequate explanation for its performance since, as a matter of fact, it does fly! Even so we may have complete confidence that the divine Author preserved the human author of each book from error or mistake as he wrote the original manuscript of the sacred text. (Archer, 1982)

So you can see your bias makes it impossible to have an honest discussion or debate, as you can never be wrong. But unlike the bumblebee it doesn’t fly. It make it a waste of our time and effort.

Cathar,
Wow, where should I start?

"Luke made use of the works of Josephus" [unquote]
I am sure you have solid proof of that? PLEASE PRODUCE.
If any copying was done, wouldn't it make more sense that Josephus copied Luke since Luke was written first? Especially in view of the fact of the absolute accuracy of Lukes Gospel.
Now since Matthew's accurate inerrant Gospel is the subject at hand, I'll remind you of the Biblical "contradictions" thread since it applies.
I, in post 794 gave a concise argument about the truth and accuracy of Messiah Jesus genealogy as it relates Matthew to Luke. Then Easyrider in 801 posted a site: www.biblestudymanuels.net/genealogy_of_Jesus. , which in minute detail explained the two genealogies. Demonstrating the miraculous accuracy of detail in both genealogies. In Matthew as it relates to a Jewish reader, in Luke as it relates to a gentile.Isn't that "Historical accuracy"?
Now as to my "going to great lengths of illogic" and "refuses to see any contradictions"? I don't think I'm illogical or refusing to see anything.
So far I don't see any (so called) "contradictions" or "historical inaccuracy's" in the inerrant word of God. You certainly haven't convinced me.
The word of God is inerrant.
I used to think the word of God was flawed until I really started to research the (so called) "contradictions", and I found out to my surprise, there are no "contradictions" or "errors" as put forth by skeptics. When you really look at them they are not as characterized by the "naysayers".
So as Easyrider said, give it your best shot.

Biker

Yes, easyrider has given a link to a website that tries to explain away the differences. That doesn't make the explanation valid or believable.

I have seen at least 5 or 6 different explanations that try to explain away the differences. Do you know why there are so many different explanations? Because none of the explanations are adequate.

I personally find the mental gymnastics people go through to deny contradictions amazing. The cognitive disconnect is astounding to behold to me.

Saying the geneology in Matthew is for the Jews and the GEnology in lue is for the Gentiles is just plain stupid. Your parents are your parents are your parents. The misreprentation of the words in luke, and the ignorance about Jewish traditon and law when it comes to blood lines displayed by those people who claim that Luke is going through Mary is just typical of those who will grasp at straws to believe anything.

[Easyrider]

Yes, easyrider has given a link to a website that tries to explain away the differences. That doesn't make the explanation valid or believable.

It does to me and plenty of others.

I have seen at least 5 or 6 different explanations that try to explain away the differences. Do you know why there are so many different explanations? Because none of the explanations are adequate. I personally find the mental gymnastics people go through to deny contradictions amazing. The cognitive disconnect is astounding to behold to me.

You're grasping at straws again, Goat. Luke carefully investigated the matters about Christ and even spoke with eyewitnesses. As far as can be known, Josephus didn't. That's why the mental gymnastics are on your side.

Saying the geneology in Matthew is for the Jews and the GEnology in lue is for the Gentiles is just plain stupid. Your parents are your parents are your parents. The misreprentation of the words in luke, and the ignorance about Jewish traditon and law when it comes to blood lines displayed by those people who claim that Luke is going through Mary is just typical of those who will grasp at straws to believe anything.

Once again you're grasping at straws. Arguments against these genealogies have all been addressed and either explained or refuted.

It also hasn't escaped my attention that so far you have zero credible evidence that Luke copied Josephus. Once again, you and Cathar deal with unsubstantiated theories.

Got something better you can hang your hat on?

[Biker]

"There are various evidences which suggest that Luke made use of the works of Josephus, and it may well be that the two-part Luke-Acts was inspired by Josephus' two-part book Against Apion, published around A.D. 100." (Schonfield, 1975, p. 35)

Pick your very best one, Goat, and let's see how far it flys. Just your best ONE. Be sure to document carefully the so-called evidence that Luke used what Josephus wrote / said, and why it couldn't be the other way around.

I think we did it in another thread before.
I see no reason to pick the best one or just one.

Yeah,
And we wrecked the argument, it was part of the "redacters didn't know Palestine geography tripe." You and Goat and others continue with this "Tubingen school" NONsense.

Biker

It has nothing to do with the Tubingen school if you read Luke's account of the same incident you will see he corrected Mark. Beside just because it comes from the Tubingen school does not disqualify anything. The produced a find bunch of scholars. As one author puts it they started changing the gospels as soon as the started writing them others complained including Bishop Diontsuis 170, Tertullian 160-254 and Orign (185-254). Marcion made his own one cleaned things out he didn't like while some accuse him of creating and editing Paul’s work. Justine Mytyr mixed thing up a bit and combined some to made his own gospel. Now I can give you a few sites that write about Luke’s use of Josephus but it is hard to go back to the library and get the books today. But it is odd that there are no copies or mention of the gospel until the second century when many others were being created.
But Goat is right; you do go to great lengths of illogic that you get from the usual Christian apologists and just copy it as if that settles it.
As Tim Callahan points out, Archer like you refuses to see any contradictions or errors.
“Be fully persuaded in your own mind that ands adequate explanation exist, even though you have not found it. The aerodynamic engineer may not understand how the bumble bee can fly, yet he trusts that there must be an adequate explanation for its performance since, as a matter of fact, it does fly! Even so we may have complete confidence that the divine Author preserved the human author of each book from error or mistake as he wrote the original manuscript of the sacred text. (Archer, 1982)

So you can see your bias makes it impossible to have an honest discussion or debate, as you can never be wrong. But unlike the bumblebee it doesn’t fly. It make it a waste of our time and effort.

Cathar,
Wow, where should I start?

"Luke made use of the works of Josephus" [unquote]
I am sure you have solid proof of that? PLEASE PRODUCE.
If any copying was done, wouldn't it make more sense that Josephus copied Luke since Luke was written first? Especially in view of the fact of the absolute accuracy of Lukes Gospel.
Now since Matthew's accurate inerrant Gospel is the subject at hand, I'll remind you of the Biblical "contradictions" thread since it applies.
I, in post 794 gave a concise argument about the truth and accuracy of Messiah Jesus genealogy as it relates Matthew to Luke. Then Easyrider in 801 posted a site: www.biblestudymanuels.net/genealogy_of_Jesus. , which in minute detail explained the two genealogies. Demonstrating the miraculous accuracy of detail in both genealogies. In Matthew as it relates to a Jewish reader, in Luke as it relates to a gentile.Isn't that "Historical accuracy"?
Now as to my "going to great lengths of illogic" and "refuses to see any contradictions"? I don't think I'm illogical or refusing to see anything.
So far I don't see any (so called) "contradictions" or "historical inaccuracy's" in the inerrant word of God. You certainly haven't convinced me.
The word of God is inerrant.
I used to think the word of God was flawed until I really started to research the (so called) "contradictions", and I found out to my surprise, there are no "contradictions" or "errors" as put forth by skeptics. When you really look at them they are not as characterized by the "naysayers".
So as Easyrider said, give it your best shot.

Biker

Yes, easyrider has given a link to a website that tries to explain away the differences. That doesn't make the explanation valid or believable.

I have seen at least 5 or 6 different explanations that try to explain away the differences. Do you know why there are so many different explanations? Because none of the explanations are adequate.

I personally find the mental gymnastics people go through to deny contradictions amazing. The cognitive disconnect is astounding to behold to me.

Saying the geneology in Matthew is for the Jews and the GEnology in lue is for the Gentiles is just plain stupid. Your parents are your parents are your parents. The misreprentation of the words in luke, and the ignorance about Jewish traditon and law when it comes to blood lines displayed by those people who claim that Luke is going through Mary is just typical of those who will grasp at straws to believe anything.

Goat,
Well you have just given your opinion. I respect that because from time to time you give a decent argument. But post 794 and 801 are sitting out there, regarding Messiah Jeshua. I'll stand by them.

Biker

[Cathar1950]

Yeah,
And we wrecked the argument, it was part of the "redacters didn't know Palestine geography tripe." You and Goat and others continue with this "Tubingen school" NONsense.

Biker

You did no such thing. You proved that Luke knew Mark was wrong and then you ignored it. Read the same incidents side by side.

If any copying was done, wouldn't it make more sense that Josephus copied Luke since Luke was written first? Especially in view of the fact of the absolute accuracy of Lukes Gospel.

Many scholars don’t believe Josephus was written first. You can’t show absolute accuracy of Luke’s Gospel or Acts. That is pure bias and dogma on your part.

Now since Matthew's accurate inerrant Gospel is the subject at hand, I'll remind you of the Biblical "contradictions" thread since it applies.
I, in post 794 gave a concise argument about the truth and accuracy of Messiah Jesus genealogy as it relates Matthew to Luke. Then Easyrider in 801 posted a site: www.biblestudymanuels.net/genealogy_of_Jesus. , which in minute detail explained the two genealogies. Demonstrating the miraculous accuracy of detail in both genealogies. In Matthew as it relates to a Jewish reader, in Luke as it relates to a gentile.Isn't that "Historical accuracy"?

How does Joseph having two different fathers and coming from two different sons of David logical or explained away with you argument?

Now as to my "going to great lengths of illogic" and "refuses to see any contradictions"? I don't think I'm illogical or refusing to see anything.
So far I don't see any (so called) "contradictions" or "historical inaccuracy's" in the inerrant word of God. You certainly haven't convinced me.
The word of God is inerrant.

How could you tell?

I used to think the word of God was flawed until I really started to research the (so called) "contradictions", and I found out to my surprise, there are no "contradictions" or "errors" as put forth by skeptics. When you really look at them they are not as characterized by the "naysayers".

Is that supposed to convince us? You were once wrong but now you are right is your best defense? I think you were once right and now you are indoctrinated to an idea the first Christians did not even hold.

So as Easyrider said, give it your best shot.
Biker

It is pretty easy for you to take one shot at a time while you look up some lame refutation by some one like Archer that is clear about his bias, as you are dogmatic. But put them together and you got a body with a bunch of holes in it.
With your bias and predisposition there is no end or solution to the arguments. The following passage by Archer is clear about your bias.

“Be fully persuaded in your own mind that ands adequate explanation exist, even though you have not found it. The aerodynamic engineer may not understand how the bumble bee can fly, yet he trusts that there must be an adequate explanation for its performance since, as a matter of fact, it does fly! Even so we may have complete confidence that the divine Author preserved the human author of each book from error or mistake as he wrote the original manuscript of the sacred text. (Archer, 1982)

Things like these sound familiar;

the fact of the absolute accuracy of Luke’s Gospel

Matthew's accurate inerrant Gospel

gave a concise argument about the truth and accuracy of Messiah Jesus genealogy as it relates Matthew to Luke.

Demonstrating the miraculous accuracy of detail in both genealogies. In Matthew as it relates to a Jewish reader, in Luke as it relates to a gentile.Isn't that "Historical accuracy"?

So far I don't see any (so called) "contradictions" or "historical inaccuracy's" in the inerrant word of God. You certainly haven't convinced me.
The word of God is inerrant.

[Easyrider]

Cathar: Many scholars don’t believe Josephus was written first.

If that's true as you contend then how in the world did Luke supposedly borrow from him?