When was the Gospel of Matthew really written?

[polonius]

[brianbbs67]

[For_The_Kingdom]

You need to research a little.

I will, as soon as you say something that requires me to do so.

Matthew was originally called the Sayings of Jesus Christ.
In about 135 AD, it was renamed Matthew, but No Matthew was involved. Matthew borrows exclusively from Mark, btu also has input from another source that scholars call "Q". No one knows for sure who that was.

Um, the "Q" source is actually the material of which you claim is called "The Sayings of Jesus Christ".

The Sayings of Jesus = Q source

Whether or not Matthew used Q as a source is speculative...there is nothing conclusive about it.

Second, Matthew is a full-blown biography of Jesus, a biography which consists of more than Jesus' sayings..so you would have to explain where Matthew got all of his material from, and it couldn't be just from Mark..because Matthew has almost double as many chapters as Mark.

So you need to do some more digging, sir.

There is an M source too, maybe...

Maybe, maybe not.

Mark was written by the secretary of Paul, not the Disciple.

That is not the testimony of the early church fathers.

It is considered the earliest written record of Christ.

No it wasn't. Paul's letters were.

About 80AD. The original ends at verse 16:8. The rest was added by copyists in the mid 400s.

That date is bad...and theories for the original ending of Mark are many.

[brianbbs67]

I mispoke when I said earliest record, I meant earliest gospel.

Mark was earlier than 80 ad, like 65-70. But, that doesn't change that the earliest manuscripts omit 16:9-20 and part of 7:16, 7:31, 9:34, 36 and 37 completely. Also 9:44, 46. 11:10, 26, 12:3, part of 10, part of 15:15-16, 28, and the aforementioned 16:9-20. Mid 100s for most of it.

As to the Q thing, I have not seen it said to be the same as the sayings of Jesus. An I didn't say all of Matthew cam from Mark, just that it drew heavily on Mark and "Q" and maybe an "M". Mark seems to straighten the roads of Matthew and Luke, IMHO.

I am open to learning. So, if you have data on this , I would like look at it. And I stand corrected on the dates. Some times answering off the top of your head leaves out important detail.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I mispoke when I said earliest record, I meant earliest gospel.

Mark was earlier than 80 ad, like 65-70. But, that doesn't change that the earliest manuscripts omit 16:9-20 and part of 7:16, 7:31, 9:34, 36 and 37 completely. Also 9:44, 46. 11:10, 26, 12:3, part of 10, part of 15:15-16, 28, and the aforementioned 16:9-20. Mid 100s for most of it.

As to the Q thing, I have not seen it said to be the same as the sayings of Jesus. An I didn't say all of Matthew cam from Mark, just that it drew heavily on Mark and "Q" and maybe an "M". Mark seems to straighten the roads of Matthew and Luke, IMHO.

I am open to learning. So, if you have data on this , I would like look at it. And I stand corrected on the dates. Some times answering off the top of your head leaves out important detail.

I recommend you check out Lee Strobel's books, the one in particular The Case for Christ.

In the book, Lee is interviewing various subject matter experts (Christian apologists) by cross-examining them as it relates to various topics of Jesus and the New Testament.

He asks some tough questions, while playing devils advocate, and those guys don't break or fold, answering every question like a BOSS.

After you read that, you will undoubtedly want to check out his other "The Case For.." books.

Good reads.

[Tcg]

You haven't convinced me it is inerrant. Their are plenty others here you haven't convinced.

The "we" you speak have quite clearly not achieved the victory you have claimed for your group.

You convince people who already agree that the Bible is inerrant, but that's not much a feat.

The Christian faith aint for everyone, is it?

No.

Now that we've settled that. Care to address the fact that you made a false claim of victory?

[For_The_Kingdom]

You haven't convinced me it is inerrant. Their are plenty others here you haven't convinced.

The "we" you speak have quite clearly not achieved the victory you have claimed for your group.

You convince people who already agree that the Bible is inerrant, but that's not much a feat.

The Christian faith aint for everyone, is it?

No.

Now that we've settled that. Care to address the fact that you made a false claim of victory?

Victory is already mines..and the outcome is irreversible.

[Tcg]

You haven't convinced me it is inerrant. Their are plenty others here you haven't convinced.

The "we" you speak have quite clearly not achieved the victory you have claimed for your group.

You convince people who already agree that the Bible is inerrant, but that's not much a feat.

The Christian faith aint for everyone, is it?

No.

Now that we've settled that. Care to address the fact that you made a false claim of victory?

Victory is already mines..and the outcome is irreversible.

Outside of the amusement factor, this claim is useless.

I ask you once again to address the fact that you made a false claim of victory. Shall I assume that your continued refusal to address it is your admission that you don't have the integrity to do so?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 23 by For_The_Kingdom]

Actually, this is an issue of logic..because based on the testimony of all accounts, we can draw the logical conclusion that there was at least two animals in question...a donkey, and a colt.

If we apply logic, then Jesus would have only needed one animal and asked for only one.

Matthew 21 King James Version (KJV)

21 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,

5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

It looks very much like the author is suggesting that Jesus wanted to ride into Jerusalem and sent a couple of disciples into a village to steal an ass and a colt. Of course he advised them that if they get caught to just say the Lord needs them.

It is also quite clear that the actions taken were done in order to contrive the fulfillment of an alleged prophecy. It actually says that quite clearly: 4 "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled....". A pity that the author didn't get inspired correctly. Sometimes you just can't get a decent (holy) ghost writer when you need one.

[brianbbs67]

https://www.quora.com/Did-Jesus-ride-bo ... -Jerusalem

[polonius]