Why did Matthew go full retarded?
>>18538042Similarity, the virgin birth was just an invention of whoever wrote Matthew. Joseph would have been the father and Joseph and Mary would never have heard the virgin birth claim.Paul, the first person to write about Jesus doesn’t mention the virgin birth. Nor does Mark, the first written gospel. It doesn’t come until Matthew who is desperately trying to insert Jesus into OT prophecies. He says Jesus was born from a virgin to fulfill Isaiah 7:14, but that has nothing to do with a virgin or the messiah, and is completed in the story >700 years before Jesus was born. Whoever wrote Matthew was a dunce.
>>18538042The Gospels aren't real testimonies is why.
>>18538042It means that history was reevaluate according to the new context with Jesus having been right about who is and isnt Israel.
>>18538042Don't forget Matthew's 2 donkey blunder
For me, it's the duplicated verses at the beginning and ending of Matthew.Near the beginning Jesus heals a beggar who is blind, around the time he starts his ministry.And then later just before he is crucified he heals a similar blind man in almost the exact same way.>9:27 As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!”>20:29 As Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him. 30 Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!”Lol.
>>18538042A zombie is a dead body that is still animated. These were no zombies, since they were truly alive.And there's a lot of evidence for that as well. It's far from only Matthew.Quadratus wrote in a letter to Emperor Hadrian, as recorded in Ecclesiastical History, Book 4, chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm) "But the works of our Savior were always present, for they were real:…those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Savior was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, such that some of them lived even to our day."The records in the capital of Osroene that the historian Eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm) transcribed from the archive in Edessa included it as well. They record what the Apostle Thaddeus taught while he was in Edessa. In part of it, he says how Jesus “burst the bars which from eternity had not been broken, and raised the dead; for he descended alone, but rose with many”.We also have the very early testimony of Ignatius for this. He lived in the first century and was himself endorsed by the Apostolic circle. In his letter to the Magnesians, chapter 9 (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-magnesians-hoole.html), he wrote “how shall we be able to live apart from him, of whom even the prophets were disciples, and waited for him in the spirit as their teacher? And on this account, he whom they rightly expected, when he came, raised them from the dead”.And Irenaeus - who had been taught by Polycarp, one of the Apostle John’s disciples – wrote in what's known as Fragment XXVIII(http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-fragments.html) that "This event was also an indication of the fact, that when the holy soul of Christ descended [to death], many souls ascended and were seen in their bodies".
>>18538283>“And there's a lot of evidence for that as well. It's far from only Matthew.”>Looks inside>Christian apologetics whose only source is “the Bible says so”
>>18538308>whose only source is “the Bible says so”This doesn't work.Quadratus reports that "some of them lived even to our day" to Hadrian, something not in the Bible.And our best source, the records in the capital of Osroene, record information pre-dating the New Testament. We can tell since some of the records are letters from emperor Tiberius to Osroene's ruler. (Osroene's alliance, or at least semi-neutrality, was important to Rome since it sat on the border of their neverending war with Parthia). He died in 37 AD, just five years after the crucifixion and likely before any of the New Testament was written yet
>>18538752>the records in the capital of OsroeneLiterally all of them are forgeries but ok
>>18538785By any objective standard these records are authentic. Firstly, to set the scene, they were in the official archive in Edessa, Osroene's capital. These archives were one of the most secure environments for documents in the ancient world. This was somewhere where you have centralized, organized document storage and control for information critical to the functioning of the state.Khorenatsi talks about when these archives were first established at https://historians.armeniancathedral.org/book/t06Khor2_38.htm, writing that the Roman governors furnished Edessa and “in a grand manner and established their treasuries for the taxes collected from Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria. They gathered there all the archives...They also transferred there the register of taxes and the temple archive”. So this archive was a big big deal. Like you might imagine for the repository of correspondence between heads of state!And that government was non-Christian, often viciously anti-Christian.In addition the records show a detailed knowledge of the time period. Take, for example, how the account states that Thaddeus cured “a man with gout, Abdu…much honoured in all the king's house”. The first-century Roman historian Tacitus verifies that there was in fact such a man. In his Annals, Book 6, chapter 31 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D6%3Achapter%3D31), while discussing an incident where “some Parthian nobles came to Rome, without the knowledge of their king” to speak with Tiberius about Armenian affairs he states that “The chief adviser of the Parthians in sending the secret embassy was Sinnaces, a man of distinguished family and corresponding wealth. Next in influence was Abdus, an eunuch, a class which, far from being despised among barbarians, actually possesses power”.So even when it comes to minor details like the names of incidental officials, it is accurate.
>>18538797No they are not. Eusebius was a lying piece of shit and nearly all of his claims have been debunked.
>>18538802>Eusebius was a lying piece of shitWhat's his biggest lie?
>>18538811That Christianity is true
>>18538813... Anon that's not a lie. A lie is something you say without thinking it to be true. Do you genuinely believe Eusebius wasn't really a Christian? Unless you do, him professing Christianity to be true is not a lie on his part.So I ask again. You say Eusebius is a liar. What was his biggest lie?
>>18538816Yes it is a lie. Anyone who unironically believes Jesus was anything but a conman and that Jewish fairy tales like exodus are historical is a retard
>>18538818Are you going to actually address any point I make?
>>18538273>begins and ends his ministry the same wayThat's just good writing.
>>18538816No, a lie is simply something that is untrue yet believed in. Eusebius believed in lies and helped propagate these lies
>>18538273>duplicatedIts not that farfetched to think that blind begars wouldn't be near one another in some town district where pocket change was good. They could keep eachother company in their darkness.>be blind>life sucks>hear from word of mouth that theres a magic man that can heal your condition>appearantly he's the Son of God>heard he's passing by>"Hey yo Johnathan did ya hear that?! The guy from all the stories is here in Jericho right now! Lets see if he can help us out!">"Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!" >Call out for help>gets healed
>>18538042Why not just say you don't believe in the resurrection, instead of taking this one verse out of context and trying to exaggerate the plain meaning? It would save a lot of time and pointless arguing.
>>18538049>whoever wrote MatthewMatthew, asshole.>>18538273There can't be more than one blind guy in the city?
>>18538958>it's taken out of context!!!!The age old christcuck cope
>>18538042>Isaiah 7:14Isaiah 7 is about how the rulers of the House of David still knew about and maintained the knowledge of the orphaned lineage of David from his first wife Michal,- and how the jews had built a superstition and drew hope from a possible reintegration with this lineage to solve times of crisis, loss of identity and tribe.The rulers insisted on maintaining the talkingpoint of this lineage being born of a virgin, because they knew that the lineage was real, and that it would need to be adopted back as opposed to be born from within Judah to avoid lying and dishonesty around the true firstborn lineage of David.The reason Jesus was controversial and couldn't speak openly about his heritage was because Rome had become anti-royalist and the jews had become anti-outsider by completely severing the idea of the mythic messiah and the actual, still existing orphaned lineage of Davids firstborn being the same thing.Jesus told Pilate that "You (Rome) CALL me [,- accusatively] the King of the Jews" because his father Juba II had married Glaphyra to shield her (Widow of Herod Alexander,- and forced back with his brother Herod Archelaus to seize his brothers claims by holding his cousins of Glaphyra&Alexander hostage) and adopted Jesus into her allies of the Essene-Sadducee family of Zechariah in order to become the physician-priest of his coming son John the Baptist.Juba II himself was THE prominent archaeologist, explorer and scholar of the southern mediterranean on behalf of Rome during the entire reign of Augustus.The Pliny's for example use Juba II as a source for many of their takes on the southern mediterranean (and southern beyond) regions.>inb4 hurr durr sourceeeee!!!?!?!
>>18538797Absolutely retarded take. That does not prove the authencity of these documents, they merely prove that some documents were authentic. You're effectively doing a red herring here by pointing towards unrelated documents and some common names. It's the same as me writing a document on the existence of fairies from 1800s, and mentioning some important names from the era. It does not make the existence of fairies any more likely. In other words, you're trying to point to oranges to save your rotten apples.The fact is, Matthew is the only gospel who even mentions this. Not even John or Luke mention it. Perhaps it was based on some earlier tradition, but there's no evidence about it.
>>18538999>Matthew, asshole.the gospels aren't direct eyewitness testimonies, retard.
>>18539394>That does not prove the authencity of these documents, they merely prove that some documents were authentic. The document that records the Apostle Thaddeus coming and giving a speech where he refers to how Jesus “burst the bars which from eternity had not been broken, and raised the dead; for he descended alone, but rose with many” are the same document that refers to Thaddeus interacting with Abdu, an extremely obscure - but real - figure.>and mentioning some important names from the eraIf those names are otherwise extremely obscure, like the official Abdu (known outside of these records exclusively from an offhand reference in Tactitus' work, and Tacitus himself was quite obscure in this period) then yes it would demonstrate that this was genuinely written by someone with a detailed knowledge of the time period and is very unlikely to be written by someone from later times simply making up a story.>Matthew is the only gospel who even mentions thisYou're just playing a shell game here. Other Gospels mention the sun going dark during the crucifixion, and all of the Gospels mention Jesus coming back from the dead, but you don't consider that strong evidence for those, and reject them. You'd do the same if all four Gospels referred to these people who were brought back to life.You're also assuming this is some sort of potent point in Christianity's favor, when it actually could easily have been the opposite. There's no indication that the people who returned to life knew why and that it was because of Jesus. It's quite possible some of them even became anti-Christian, or Gnostic-esque where one starts saying "I actually have the true Christianity, before I was brought back, this Jesus told me in a revelation -" and then making something up. Or paid by the Pharisees into saying Moses told them a great deceiver had just been killed. Or any number of these things. Even a Disciple, Judas, did this.
>>18538283Ignatius literally knew about the Gospel of Matthew, and he even quoted it in his letter to the Trallians.> “For Says the SCRIPTURE, ‘Many bodies of the saints that slept arose,’ their graves being opened. He descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He arose accompanied by a multitude” – Ignatius to the Trallians, ch. IX He's not quoting an eyewitness here, he's quoting the scripture.Moreover, Irenaeus also knew the Gospel of Matthew, and he wrote extensively about it. Moreover moreover, Irenaeus literally believed that the Gospel of John was written by John the Apostle, his teacher's supposed teacher, despite the fact contemporary scholarship has confirmed this to be practically impossible. In other words, he's not in any way a reliable source to the historicity of the gospels, even if Polycarp supposedly was John the Apostle's disciple. Even stranger, if it was written by John the Apostle, why no mention of the dead saints? Moreover moreover moreover: Polycarp also read Matthew, so once again, we have no second-hand sources even from a supposed eyewitness. However, the only person to even make this claim about Polycarp being a direct disciple was Irenaeus himself.
>>18538273It's like poetry, it rhymes.>>18538864>>18538999More than one blind guy who said exactly the same thing as the first guy?
>>18539626I've already responded to "it's just coming from the Bible" in >>18538752 and the followup posts. >and he even quoted it in his letter to the Trallians.>For Says the SCRIPTUREAre you getting this from the Long Recension? Look at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm, chapter 9 doesn't say this:"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life."I actually wish Ignatius clearly quoted the Gospels since it would be powerful evidence for them.>Irenaeus literally believed that the Gospel of John was written by John the Apostle, his teacher's supposed teacher, despite the fact contemporary scholarship has confirmed this to be practically impossibleGive me your #1 strongest argument for this being "practically impossible".>Even stranger, if it was written by John the Apostle, why no mention of the dead saints?In what was is that something "stranger"? This is an argument from silence which is one of the worst historical logical fallacies. Especially when for John we already pretty much know why, for anything in one Gospel but not his, John doesn't cover it. One of his express goals with his Gospel was to cover what the others hadn't. Look at what Eusebius reports in his Ecclesiastical History at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm: "the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists"His goal is explicitly not to cover the same ground that they did.
Loving the coping ITT
>>18539417You're going to Hell.
>>18540308You're an embarrassment
>>18538958>christcuck did the memehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o
>>18539009the funny part is, more than once was found that the christian in question doesn't know what that even means; they use it as an ancient curse, "just utter the words 'out of context', my son, and you will win the debate".
>>18538283>a bunch of politicians or magical thinking cultists said this happenedno way.
>>18540308The gospels are not eye witness testimonies, retard.
>>18541057NTA but Matthew and John are, Mark was Peter's scribe who was, and Luke says he uses them in Luke 1:2.
>>18538042Am I the only one who can "smell" AIslop? Like all of them have this strange metallic sort of smell to them in like the way blood smells of metal
>>18541103Matthew literally copied Mark and John is absolutely made given the synoptic problem.
>>18541309Give me your #1 single strongest piece of evidence for this.
