Matthew 6:24

Ra75 wrote:
> To keep it short: for all practical purposes he was not a contemporary
> according to modern scholars.

Dude. I asked for evidence. "According to modern scholars" is not evidence. The truth is that modern scholars disagree as to whether Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus, unless you arbitrarily disqualify anyone who disagrees with your preferred position as not "modern" or not a "scholar" because you don't like their views. There's no point counting heads, because the truth is not a popularity contest. If your preferred School of Academics is right, then they must have good reasons. What are those reasons?

You came on pretty strong there, telling my that, if I know anything, I "know" that Matthew was not Jesus's contemporary. You must think there are pretty strong reasons to believe that Matthew was not Jesus' contemporary. What are they?

> To refine the statement (and avoid abuse of statistics), I would say that
> it is implausible and not likely.

Now you're softening your views a bit. But you still have not presented any actual reasons for your opinion.

> The difference between ancient sources and modern scholars is that the
> latter provide evidence.

Dude. We are discussing Ancient History. Without ancient sources, there IS no evidence, and the modern scholar has nothing to work with. So what is the Modern Scholar's argument, based on ancient sources, that Matthew was not Jesus' contemporary?

Are you asking me to assume that the so-called "modern scholar" is right, merely because he is (in some sense) "modern"? Stop praising the "modern scholar" for his modernity and telling me how much evidence he has. Show me what that evidence is.

> Of course it is just theories.

So ... you're just surrendering? Even I could do better than that, and I don't even agree with the theories.

> If so, is it true that some other "prophet" split the moon in half and
> rode up heaven with a winged horse (I would say flew) and negotiated
> with his creator about the amount of daily prayers with Abraham as a
> middle man? I would say that this is bollocks, even though the sources
> are ancient.

Now you're changing the subject. We weren't discussing the Old Testament. We were discussing Matthew. And we were not discussing whether the narrative portions of Matthew were reliable. We were discussing whether Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus.

I happen to think the writings of Joseph Smith are a load of bollocks. This does not compel me to think that the writings of Joseph Smith were written 50 years after Joseph Smith's death by someone other than Joseph Smith.

I'm not going to let you change the subject. You told me you "know" that Matthew was not Jesus' contemporary. How do you know this?

> No, I am interested in evidence, or lack thereof.

You sure could have fooled me. If you are so interested in evidence, then why have you presented none whatsoever in support of your claim that Matthew was not Jesus' contemporary. By the way, that claim is a positive claim. Don't try to support it on the basis of "lack of evidence". That, in logic, is known as "the argument from ignorance", and it is a logical fallacy.

Of course, you could just admit that you do not know whether or not Matthew was Jesus' contemporary. That would be fair, if "lack of evidence" is the basis of your position.

(However, be aware their IS ancient evidence that Matthew was Jesus' contemporary. This evidence is not absolutely strong or completely airtight. However, some counter-evidence must at least be attempted before anyone claims that the probabilities go the other way).

> What are you talking about? Do you find that sources stating that
> some person walked on water, cured the terminally ill and made water
> into wine and rose from the dead is plausible, reliable and conveys
> the truth? Maybe it is just me, but I would not say that you would
> need a convincing argument to trust moderns sources instead of the
> ancient.

Don't change the subject. If you think that some of the events that Matthew reports are untrue and unreliable, then that is a different subject. The psychic Sylvia Browne claimed that Amanda Berry was dead. She was wrong. Her "evidence" was pure fiction. It does not follow that Sylvia Brown was not a contemporary of Amanda Berry. She was and is.

What am I talking about? It's called the "historical method". It recognizes that the mists of time swallow up and distort the past, and therefore relies on the oldest and most original sources that can be found. Hence, if you do 19th century history, you use the best contemporary 19th century sources you can find. If you do Medieval history, you use contemporary medieval sources, to the extent that you can find them (these will be scarcer). And if you do ancient Palestinian history, you use ancient Palestinian sources to the extent that you can find them (these will be rare indeed). And if you cannot find original sources (as is often the case the further you go back in time) you use the oldest, least derivative sources you can find.

What's the alternative? To make stuff up? Wait 2000 years and then invent fictions pleasing to the sensibilities of the modern age? The only way we can know about the past is that some contemporary wrote stuff down, and his writings got preserved and passed down over the centuries. Or perhaps, at a stretch, an oral tradition or two could have survived accurately for a generation or two after the death of the first-hand observer before being written down and passed on in some fashion; but even in this case we are dealing with extremely ancient documents.

If these so-called "modern scholars", that you worship as the High Priests of Modern Truth, don't use "ancient sources" (which you despise as unreliable), then what do they use? Their psychic powers? Their mystic tea leaves?

Or (if you don't trust the ancient sources) you could just admit you don't know. But you did not merely say "I don't know." You have made a positive claim about ancient history, and declared it to be a Truth so obvious that even I must know it. You have claimed that Matthew (I assume you mean the author of the gospel) was NOT a contemporary of Jesus. That is a positive claim about ancient history. Please use the historical method, and support your claim with reference to ancient sources.

You may want to read "Redating the New Testament" by J.A.T. Robinson. He may interest you because he does not appear to accept the supernatural. However, all of his arguments are squarely based on ancient sources. Hence, is is not only "modern" and a "scholar", but (judging by his methods) a real historian as well. However, the High Priests of Modernity you worship routinely ignore him, because they do not like his conclusions (which they have never refuted, because they cannot).