Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jesus didn't say much.

bulproof
Posts: 25,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 11:00:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

There are hints in the Bible that he studied Jewish law in the Temple. In the Talmud, it says he was the protege of a Rabbi before being cast from the Temple for performing witchcraft.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 11:01:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

There are hints in the Bible that he studied Jewish law in the Temple. In the Talmud, it says he was the protege of a Rabbi before being cast out of Judaism for performing witchcraft.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 1:43:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

I don"t know because people didn"t write all.

There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they would all be written, I suppose that even the world itself wouldn't have room for the books that would be written.
John 21:25
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 1:50:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?
You really think the Gospel writers had the resources to write down every single word Jesus said?
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.
Never fart near dog
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 5:13:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Jesus said MUCH in little, read the Gospels. Of course a small amount of the mind and life of Jesus is recorded and in that concentrated amount recorded we have within some of the most remarkable and inspirational material ever written.
This was a man barely in the mid thirties and of no prominent background, and has reached and impacted more people in our entire existence than probably anybody and still to come. What a remarkable turn in history the day Jesus walked the Earth.
More than anything else it's the "spiritual" truth and life that emanates from Him and His words, He is more than just ink on paper, something you may never capture.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 5:30:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

That's very true! All of the canonized gospels were anonymous writings and no one knows who wrote any of them. The authors were taken from rumors which floated about for decades and more before being officially assigned by a vote of the council. (Christian logic: if you don't know who wrote something you like, decide by a vote that it was written by a key character in the writings).

"The Gospel of Mark" is the oldest, dated to 60 - 80CE (some 30 - 50 years after the time of Jesus). It's written in a rather poor style of Koine Greek, rather than Hebrew which would be the more likely language for a former Jew. It misquotes the 10 Commandments lending further doubt to the idea that it was written by a former Jew or anyone who knew Jesus, and credits Moses with statements which Jews were always careful to credit to God. The only reason to suggest it was written by Mark (or anyone who actually knew Jesus), is that church fathers voted Mark to have been the author.

"The Gospel of Matthew" is commonly dated 90-100CE and is mostly just a paraphrased copy of "The Gospel of Mark" with a few changes and additions. While current popular copies of "Mark" contain 678-verses (and the oldest copies have 666, leaving out the final 12), Matthew contains parallels for about 600 of those verses. It also contains verses believed to have been taken directly from the "Q". As with all of the canonized gospels, it was an anonymous writing and the council simply voted to decide that Matthew was the author. But the extent of the copying now has even Study Bibles beginning to admit that the assigned authorship contains little - if any - credibility.

NIV STUDY BIBLE
- "Although the first gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies, in particular, those that stress Matthews alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his gospel have caused some biblical scholars to abandon Matthian authorship. "Why," they ask, "would Matthew, a witness to the events of the Lord's life depend so heavily on Mark's account?"

"The Gospel of Luke" contains parallel verses for about 300 of the verses in "The Gospel of Mark", again showing that the author copied most of the work. It also contains an interesting merging of verses from "Mark" at Luke 9:18, resulting in the claim that Jesus was alone, praying on a mountain, AND with his disciples. And while Christians often try to claim that it makes perfect sense to be alone AND with other people, Jesus sent the disciples out to sea in the preceding verses. The verse comes from merging the first half of Mark 6:46 with the latter half of Mark 8:27. It is very likely this was done because the author's copy of "Mark" was damaged, preventing him from knowing what was said in the 74.5 verses in between. And if we examine those verses in "Mark", we find a series of events and miracles which are mentioned nowhere within "The Gospel of Luke". It is very clear that the author was producing a copy, and even states that he is working from other sources in the first four verses.

(Luke 9:18) "And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am?"

(Mark 6:46) "And when he had sent them away, he departed into a mountain to pray."

(Mark 8:27) "And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?"

In addition to this, "The Gospel of Luke" is found to contain information taken directly from "Jewish War" and "Antiquity of the Jews" which were written by Flavius Josephus (who lived after the time of Jesus), and completed in 93CE. This dates "The Gospel of Luke" to post-93CE.

"The Gospel of John" is the least like the other gospels (non-synoptic), but still shows distinct levels of copying (paraphrasing), from "The Gospel of Mark", as well as containing the same information found in "The Gospel of Luke" which was taken from the two aforementioned works of Flavius Josephus.

So none of the canonized gospels were written by eye-witnesses, nor were they written by anyone who had direct access to witnesses. All of them were written by relying upon common traditional stories, and the works of other anonymous authors.

The result is that the Bible contains not a single word from Jesus. And if we take a look at some of the dialog presented as having come from Jesus, we can sometimes find the direct source in the verses of the Old Testament. For Example;

- The Jesus dialog in Mark 15:34 was taken word-for-word from Psalms 22:1.

- The Jesus dialog in Matthew 11:5 was paraphrased from Isaiah 35:5, Isaiah 26:19 and Isaiah 61:1.

- The Jesus dialog in Matthew 21:2 comes not only from Zechariah 9:9, but from the Greek Septuagint version wherein the single donkey of the prophecy, is mistranslated as two donkeys. So the fictional dialog of Jesus has him requesting that his disciples steal two donkeys, rather than one, as in the other three gospels.

- The fictional dialog for the unnamed heckler in Matthew 27:43 comes from paraphrasing the Psalms 22:8.

In the final analysis, it is unlikely that Jesus ever actually existed. This is still very much the minority opinion, but it is worth pointing out that it's also the most objective opinion. And that can be established by working the available evidence through Bayes Theorem which results in a score too low to constitute historicity for the character of Jesus. And this fits perfectly with the number of contemporary writings for Jesus (ZERO), and the number of historians living in that time and region (approximately 2-dozen), who mention Jesus (ZERO).

So while Christians run around saying "Jesus said", and "Jesus taught" and "according to Jesus", they have not a single word ever uttered by the man... IF the man ever existed. They have fictional stories which are sprinkled (lightly), with real places, real people, and a few actual events. If we look to (arguably), the most prolific historian who actually lived at the time of Jesus (and in that same region) - Philo of Alexandria, we find not a single mention of Jesus, nor do we find any mention of any major event of the New Testament. And Philo wrote prolifically of the religious and political events of his day, and was directly connected (uncle), to the successor to Herod as "King of the Jews", as well as to the Prefect of Egypt and Procurator of Judea. Had Jesus existed it is beyond reason to suggest Philo could have missed hearing about him. He even mentions the friction growing between Pontias Pilate and the Jews, but obviously, Philo never even heard of Jesus.

So we have no idea what Jesus did, said or believed, or if he even existed.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 5:33:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 5:13:44 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Jesus said MUCH in little, read the Gospels. Of course a small amount of the mind and life of Jesus is recorded and in that concentrated amount recorded we have within some of the most remarkable and inspirational material ever written.
This was a man barely in the mid thirties and of no prominent background, and has reached and impacted more people in our entire existence than probably anybody and still to come. What a remarkable turn in history the day Jesus walked the Earth.
More than anything else it's the "spiritual" truth and life that emanates from Him and His words, He is more than just ink on paper, something you may never capture.

You REALLY need to take a look at my post which appears just below yours (Post #8). I'm not sure there's a polite way to put this, but you simply haven't a clue what you're talking about.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 6:02:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was mentioned in the Gospels and other new Testament writings. Only Luke was a latter convert.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 6:09:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 6:02:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was mentioned in the Gospels and other new Testament writings. Only Luke was a latter convert.

But those are NOT the authors of the gospels. The canonized gospels were all anonymous writings. The authorships were assigned by a vote of the council... and they were wrong on all four counts.

Start here: Read the first four verses of "Luke". What does it say?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 6:18:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 6:02:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was mentioned in the Gospels and other new Testament writings. Only Luke was a latter convert.

We dont talking about belief of some poeple, scholarship says otherwise, and its not some "scholarship", everybody know that it. You know what is Plagiarism? large portions of one gospel were plagiarized to other gospels and vise versa.

here the relation between the Gospels...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 6:24:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 6:02:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was mentioned in the Gospels and other new Testament writings. Only Luke was a latter convert.

Here example why Mattew didnt write Gospel of "mattew":
Mattew 9:9
9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him.

Did Mattew write that? its in the third person, not in first person. if you write some stuff about youself you would write in the 3 person? somebody talking about Mattew and Jesus another person.
Never fart near dog
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 6:33:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 6:24:24 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:02:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was mentioned in the Gospels and other new Testament writings. Only Luke was a latter convert.

Here example why Mattew didnt write Gospel of "mattew":
Mattew 9:9
9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him.

Did Mattew write that? its in the third person, not in first person. if you write some stuff about youself you would write in the 3 person? somebody talking about Mattew and Jesus another person.

Sure I've done it in school. If you are trying to write an account you may or may not actually refer to yourself in the first person. Matthew chose not to and John chose to refer to himself as the disciple that Jesus loved.

Mark makes note of himself in his gospel:

A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked. Mark 14:51-52
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 6:37:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 5:33:33 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 5:13:44 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Jesus said MUCH in little, read the Gospels. Of course a small amount of the mind and life of Jesus is recorded and in that concentrated amount recorded we have within some of the most remarkable and inspirational material ever written.
This was a man barely in the mid thirties and of no prominent background, and has reached and impacted more people in our entire existence than probably anybody and still to come. What a remarkable turn in history the day Jesus walked the Earth.
More than anything else it's the "spiritual" truth and life that emanates from Him and His words, He is more than just ink on paper, something you may never capture.

You REALLY need to take a look at my post which appears just below yours (Post #8). I'm not sure there's a polite way to put this, but you simply haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I've read your post sir, and I've read most of what you write. I have more clue than what you'd imagine :)
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 6:39:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 6:09:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:02:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was mentioned in the Gospels and other new Testament writings. Only Luke was a latter convert.

But those are NOT the authors of the gospels. The canonized gospels were all anonymous writings. The authorships were assigned by a vote of the council... and they were wrong on all four counts.

Start here: Read the first four verses of "Luke". What does it say?

When Luke wrote this Matthew may still have been in Greek and Mark was in Rome, unlike Luke who seem to be in Greece (just going off memory here). Just because something was written doesn't mean that the internet was present to move all of the information around instantly. There wasn't even a printing press. It took time for all of these writings to be moved about.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 6:46:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 6:39:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:09:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:02:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was mentioned in the Gospels and other new Testament writings. Only Luke was a latter convert.

But those are NOT the authors of the gospels. The canonized gospels were all anonymous writings. The authorships were assigned by a vote of the council... and they were wrong on all four counts.

Start here: Read the first four verses of "Luke". What does it say?

When Luke wrote this Matthew may still have been in Greek and Mark was in Rome, unlike Luke who seem to be in Greece (just going off memory here). Just because something was written doesn't mean that the internet was present to move all of the information around instantly. There wasn't even a printing press. It took time for all of these writings to be moved about.

* Matthew may have still been in Hebrew/Aramaic.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 6:54:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 6:37:12 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 5:33:33 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 5:13:44 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Jesus said MUCH in little, read the Gospels. Of course a small amount of the mind and life of Jesus is recorded and in that concentrated amount recorded we have within some of the most remarkable and inspirational material ever written.
This was a man barely in the mid thirties and of no prominent background, and has reached and impacted more people in our entire existence than probably anybody and still to come. What a remarkable turn in history the day Jesus walked the Earth.
More than anything else it's the "spiritual" truth and life that emanates from Him and His words, He is more than just ink on paper, something you may never capture.

You REALLY need to take a look at my post which appears just below yours (Post #8). I'm not sure there's a polite way to put this, but you simply haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I've read your post sir, and I've read most of what you write. I have more clue than what you'd imagine :)

Based on the statements you made; no you don't. You have far less of a clue than you seem to imagine that you do. I'm not trying to be rude but your statements are clearly not supported (and even refuted), by the evidence.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:01:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 6:39:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:09:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:02:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was mentioned in the Gospels and other new Testament writings. Only Luke was a latter convert.

But those are NOT the authors of the gospels. The canonized gospels were all anonymous writings. The authorships were assigned by a vote of the council... and they were wrong on all four counts.

Start here: Read the first four verses of "Luke". What does it say?

When Luke wrote this Matthew may still have been in Greek and Mark was in Rome, unlike Luke who seem to be in Greece (just going off memory here).

First point: Luke didn't write it.

Second point: Mark didn't write "The Gospel of Mark"

Third point: Matthew didn't write "The Gospel of Matthew"

Fourth point: John didn't write "The Gospel of John"

Just because something was written doesn't mean that the internet was present to move all of the information around instantly.
And just because a bunch of men with little more than a clue voted that the gospels were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John doesn't mean that they were the authors. And the evidence ALL says they weren't the authors.

Let me hand you a collection of 30 stories - all written 100 - 250 years before you were born. They're all anonymous and you definitely don't know - and never met - any of the authors. Can you determine who the authors were by voting? That's how the gospel authorships were determined for the Bible.

There wasn't even a printing press. It took time for all of these writings to be moved about.
And...? What does that have to do with the fact that the authors were copying rather than producing eye-witness accounts, that they were borrowing information from other people, when they were supposed to have witnessed the events, and that they were all writing several decades after the supposed events?

You're completely ignoring all of the evidence showing the authorships to be wrong, and instead you're babbling about how the Internet was around to move data 2,000 years ago. Who said that it was? That doesn't even enter into the discussion.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:05:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 6:46:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:39:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:09:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:02:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was mentioned in the Gospels and other new Testament writings. Only Luke was a latter convert.

But those are NOT the authors of the gospels. The canonized gospels were all anonymous writings. The authorships were assigned by a vote of the council... and they were wrong on all four counts.

Start here: Read the first four verses of "Luke". What does it say?

When Luke wrote this Matthew may still have been in Greek and Mark was in Rome, unlike Luke who seem to be in Greece (just going off memory here). Just because something was written doesn't mean that the internet was present to move all of the information around instantly. There wasn't even a printing press. It took time for all of these writings to be moved about.

* Matthew may have still been in Hebrew/Aramaic.

"The Gospel of Matthew" wasn't written in Hebrew or Aramaic. It was originally written in Greek (Koine Greek). ALL of the New Testament manuscripts were originally written in Greek. The Old Testament was written in a combination of Hebrew and Aramaic.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:07:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 6:33:10 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:24:24 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:02:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was mentioned in the Gospels and other new Testament writings. Only Luke was a latter convert.

Here example why Mattew didnt write Gospel of "mattew":
Mattew 9:9
9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him.

Did Mattew write that? its in the third person, not in first person. if you write some stuff about youself you would write in the 3 person? somebody talking about Mattew and Jesus another person.

Sure I've done it in school. If you are trying to write an account you may or may not actually refer to yourself in the first person. Matthew chose not to and John chose to refer to himself as the disciple that Jesus loved.

Mark makes note of himself in his gospel:

A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked. Mark 14:51-52

Where does it identify him as Mark? I don't think you're even connecting with the argument you're attempting to present.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:08:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 6:54:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:37:12 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 5:33:33 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 5:13:44 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Jesus said MUCH in little, read the Gospels. Of course a small amount of the mind and life of Jesus is recorded and in that concentrated amount recorded we have within some of the most remarkable and inspirational material ever written.
This was a man barely in the mid thirties and of no prominent background, and has reached and impacted more people in our entire existence than probably anybody and still to come. What a remarkable turn in history the day Jesus walked the Earth.
More than anything else it's the "spiritual" truth and life that emanates from Him and His words, He is more than just ink on paper, something you may never capture.


You REALLY need to take a look at my post which appears just below yours (Post #8). I'm not sure there's a polite way to put this, but you simply haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I've read your post sir, and I've read most of what you write. I have more clue than what you'd imagine :)

: Based on the statements you made; no you don't. You have far less of a clue than you seem to imagine that you do. I'm not trying to be rude but your statements are clearly not supported (and even refuted), by the evidence.

Well you are rude, but that's irrelevant. Which statement are not obviously supported lol?... that Jesus said much in little, some of the most influential material and influential character ever existed, Jesus being in His 30's or that the spiritual qualities that emanates from Him???
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:10:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 7:05:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:46:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:39:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:09:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:02:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was mentioned in the Gospels and other new Testament writings. Only Luke was a latter convert.

But those are NOT the authors of the gospels. The canonized gospels were all anonymous writings. The authorships were assigned by a vote of the council... and they were wrong on all four counts.

Start here: Read the first four verses of "Luke". What does it say?

When Luke wrote this Matthew may still have been in Greek and Mark was in Rome, unlike Luke who seem to be in Greece (just going off memory here). Just because something was written doesn't mean that the internet was present to move all of the information around instantly. There wasn't even a printing press. It took time for all of these writings to be moved about.

* Matthew may have still been in Hebrew/Aramaic.

"The Gospel of Matthew" wasn't written in Hebrew or Aramaic. It was originally written in Greek (Koine Greek). ALL of the New Testament manuscripts were originally written in Greek. The Old Testament was written in a combination of Hebrew and Aramaic.

Papias (bishop of Hieropolis, wrote about 130AD, "Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could."

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in 180 AD:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

The oral traditions told us who wrote the Gospels.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:16:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 7:07:20 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:33:10 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:24:24 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:02:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was mentioned in the Gospels and other new Testament writings. Only Luke was a latter convert.

Here example why Mattew didnt write Gospel of "mattew":
Mattew 9:9
9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him.

Did Mattew write that? its in the third person, not in first person. if you write some stuff about youself you would write in the 3 person? somebody talking about Mattew and Jesus another person.

Sure I've done it in school. If you are trying to write an account you may or may not actually refer to yourself in the first person. Matthew chose not to and John chose to refer to himself as the disciple that Jesus loved.

Mark makes note of himself in his gospel:

A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked. Mark 14:51-52

Where does it identify him as Mark? I don't think you're even connecting with the argument you're attempting to present.

I can, but I'm posting from work as a break. If you want me to build it out for you I will, but just going from memory. John Mark is the son of the Wife of Clopas. She was the one who owned the upper room where the last supper took place - this is why he is present here. He ends up in Rome as the companion of Peter and after the death of Peter and Paul he writes this gospel (which is essentially what Peter taught). That is why he is the only one to include this tidbit in his Gospel account. It was a personal experience of his.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:23:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 7:08:47 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:54:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:37:12 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 5:33:33 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 5:13:44 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Jesus said MUCH in little, read the Gospels. Of course a small amount of the mind and life of Jesus is recorded and in that concentrated amount recorded we have within some of the most remarkable and inspirational material ever written.
This was a man barely in the mid thirties and of no prominent background, and has reached and impacted more people in our entire existence than probably anybody and still to come. What a remarkable turn in history the day Jesus walked the Earth.
More than anything else it's the "spiritual" truth and life that emanates from Him and His words, He is more than just ink on paper, something you may never capture.


You REALLY need to take a look at my post which appears just below yours (Post #8). I'm not sure there's a polite way to put this, but you simply haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I've read your post sir, and I've read most of what you write. I have more clue than what you'd imagine :)

: Based on the statements you made; no you don't. You have far less of a clue than you seem to imagine that you do. I'm not trying to be rude but your statements are clearly not supported (and even refuted), by the evidence.

Well you are rude, but that's irrelevant. Which statement are not obviously supported lol?... that Jesus said much in little, some of the most influential material and influential character ever existed, Jesus being in His 30's or that the spiritual qualities that emanates from Him???

You don't have ANYTHING Jesus said... NOTHING! That's the whole point. The gospels which pretend to quote him didn't come from anyone who even knew him. Many of the supposed dialogs of Jesus are simply taken from Old Testament verses. This is one of the many things which provides plausibility to Jesus mythicism.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:31:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 7:23:11 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 7:08:47 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:54:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:37:12 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 5:33:33 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 5:13:44 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Jesus said MUCH in little, read the Gospels. Of course a small amount of the mind and life of Jesus is recorded and in that concentrated amount recorded we have within some of the most remarkable and inspirational material ever written.
This was a man barely in the mid thirties and of no prominent background, and has reached and impacted more people in our entire existence than probably anybody and still to come. What a remarkable turn in history the day Jesus walked the Earth.
More than anything else it's the "spiritual" truth and life that emanates from Him and His words, He is more than just ink on paper, something you may never capture.


You REALLY need to take a look at my post which appears just below yours (Post #8). I'm not sure there's a polite way to put this, but you simply haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I've read your post sir, and I've read most of what you write. I have more clue than what you'd imagine :)

: Based on the statements you made; no you don't. You have far less of a clue than you seem to imagine that you do. I'm not trying to be rude but your statements are clearly not supported (and even refuted), by the evidence.

Well you are rude, but that's irrelevant. Which statement are not obviously supported lol?... that Jesus said much in little, some of the most influential material and influential character ever existed, Jesus being in His 30's or that the spiritual qualities that emanates from Him???

You don't have ANYTHING Jesus said... NOTHING! That's the whole point. The gospels which pretend to quote him didn't come from anyone who even knew him. Many of the supposed dialogs of Jesus are simply taken from Old Testament verses. This is one of the many things which provides plausibility to Jesus mythicism.

So basically besides the fact you think Jesus was a myth and the authors were liars I said nothing that wasn't obviously supported lol? That's what I thought.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:40:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 7:10:04 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 7:05:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:46:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:39:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:09:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:02:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was mentioned in the Gospels and other new Testament writings. Only Luke was a latter convert.

But those are NOT the authors of the gospels. The canonized gospels were all anonymous writings. The authorships were assigned by a vote of the council... and they were wrong on all four counts.

Start here: Read the first four verses of "Luke". What does it say?

When Luke wrote this Matthew may still have been in Greek and Mark was in Rome, unlike Luke who seem to be in Greece (just going off memory here). Just because something was written doesn't mean that the internet was present to move all of the information around instantly. There wasn't even a printing press. It took time for all of these writings to be moved about.

* Matthew may have still been in Hebrew/Aramaic.

"The Gospel of Matthew" wasn't written in Hebrew or Aramaic. It was originally written in Greek (Koine Greek). ALL of the New Testament manuscripts were originally written in Greek. The Old Testament was written in a combination of Hebrew and Aramaic.

Papias (bishop of Hieropolis, wrote about 130AD, "Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could."
And yet, aside from the fact that the associates of Papias didn't indicate that they believed he was intellectually sound, Papias can't identify the specific writing. Saying "Matthew wrote about Jesus" is a long way from taking a specific anonymous writing, and accurately identifying it as the work of Matthew. And given that Christians of that time were commonly reading from more than 30 different gospels, the idea that you can pick one and assign it to Matthew with any hope of being correct is beyond absurd.

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in 180 AD:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)
And again, you don't have any clue which gospel that might be, or even if it's a gospel that survived. The church actively attempted to destroy writings which they didn't approve for the Bible canon. They claimed anything they didn't include in the BIble as being "heretical", and warned people against reading it. They destroyed what they could. So Matthew may have written a gospel. He might even have rendered a version in Hebrew. But his work is not the text known as "The Gospel of Matthew" in the Bible.

The oral traditions told us who wrote the Gospels.
No they didn't. There were multiple traditions regarding authorships and no one knows if they were correct. If you look to all 27-books of the New Testament, scholars believe we have accurately identified only two authors. And the gospels are known to be anonymous, with erroneous authors assigned.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:44:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 7:31:34 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 7:23:11 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 7:08:47 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:54:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:37:12 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 5:33:33 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 5:13:44 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Jesus said MUCH in little, read the Gospels. Of course a small amount of the mind and life of Jesus is recorded and in that concentrated amount recorded we have within some of the most remarkable and inspirational material ever written.
This was a man barely in the mid thirties and of no prominent background, and has reached and impacted more people in our entire existence than probably anybody and still to come. What a remarkable turn in history the day Jesus walked the Earth.
More than anything else it's the "spiritual" truth and life that emanates from Him and His words, He is more than just ink on paper, something you may never capture.


You REALLY need to take a look at my post which appears just below yours (Post #8). I'm not sure there's a polite way to put this, but you simply haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I've read your post sir, and I've read most of what you write. I have more clue than what you'd imagine :)

: Based on the statements you made; no you don't. You have far less of a clue than you seem to imagine that you do. I'm not trying to be rude but your statements are clearly not supported (and even refuted), by the evidence.

Well you are rude, but that's irrelevant. Which statement are not obviously supported lol?... that Jesus said much in little, some of the most influential material and influential character ever existed, Jesus being in His 30's or that the spiritual qualities that emanates from Him???

You don't have ANYTHING Jesus said... NOTHING! That's the whole point. The gospels which pretend to quote him didn't come from anyone who even knew him. Many of the supposed dialogs of Jesus are simply taken from Old Testament verses. This is one of the many things which provides plausibility to Jesus mythicism.

So basically besides the fact you think Jesus was a myth and the authors were liars I said nothing that wasn't obviously supported lol? That's what I thought.

You're simply ignoring everything I've presented to you and have turned around and said the exact opposite. Almost nothing you've presented is in any way, accurate. What makes you think that people who never met Jesus accurately wrote about the things Jesus said (assuming Jesus existed)?

And no one said any of the authors were lying. They likely believed the stories they heard and the texts from which they worked. So while they produced a lot of fiction, they likely believed it was true. But none of them knew Jesus or witnessed the events.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:48:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 7:40:19 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 7:10:04 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 7:05:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:46:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:39:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:09:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:02:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was mentioned in the Gospels and other new Testament writings. Only Luke was a latter convert.

But those are NOT the authors of the gospels. The canonized gospels were all anonymous writings. The authorships were assigned by a vote of the council... and they were wrong on all four counts.

Start here: Read the first four verses of "Luke". What does it say?

When Luke wrote this Matthew may still have been in Greek and Mark was in Rome, unlike Luke who seem to be in Greece (just going off memory here). Just because something was written doesn't mean that the internet was present to move all of the information around instantly. There wasn't even a printing press. It took time for all of these writings to be moved about.

* Matthew may have still been in Hebrew/Aramaic.

"The Gospel of Matthew" wasn't written in Hebrew or Aramaic. It was originally written in Greek (Koine Greek). ALL of the New Testament manuscripts were originally written in Greek. The Old Testament was written in a combination of Hebrew and Aramaic.

Papias (bishop of Hieropolis, wrote about 130AD, "Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could."
And yet, aside from the fact that the associates of Papias didn't indicate that they believed he was intellectually sound, Papias can't identify the specific writing. Saying "Matthew wrote about Jesus" is a long way from taking a specific anonymous writing, and accurately identifying it as the work of Matthew. And given that Christians of that time were commonly reading from more than 30 different gospels, the idea that you can pick one and assign it to Matthew with any hope of being correct is beyond absurd.

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in 180 AD:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)
And again, you don't have any clue which gospel that might be, or even if it's a gospel that survived. The church actively attempted to destroy writings which they didn't approve for the Bible canon. They claimed anything they didn't include in the BIble as being "heretical", and warned people against reading it. They destroyed what they could. So Matthew may have written a gospel. He might even have rendered a version in Hebrew. But his work is not the text known as "The Gospel of Matthew" in the Bible.

The oral traditions told us who wrote the Gospels.
No they didn't. There were multiple traditions regarding authorships and no one knows if they were correct. If you look to all 27-books of the New Testament, scholars believe we have accurately identified only two authors. And the gospels are known to be anonymous, with erroneous authors assigned.

So your response is just that since he didn't include a copy of the Gospels being discussed it doesn't count. Whatever. Not worth any further dialogue. Thanks, have a good evening.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2014 7:54:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/6/2014 7:48:05 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 7:40:19 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 7:10:04 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 7:05:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:46:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:39:52 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:09:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/6/2014 6:02:37 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2014 4:28:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/6/2014 10:34:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
I mean 3yrs of wandering around preaching and his alleged recorded words would take maybe 20 minutes to say.

What was he doing the rest of the time?

The gospels we have today are written by anonymous persons (werent disciples of Jesus) many years ago after him. if in the near future we will find some manuscripts of the Time of Jesus or from the disciples, it would be some point to think about.

Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was mentioned in the Gospels and other new Testament writings. Only Luke was a latter convert.

But those are NOT the authors of the gospels. The canonized gospels were all anonymous writings. The authorships were assigned by a vote of the council... and they were wrong on all four counts.

Start here: Read the first four verses of "Luke". What does it say?

When Luke wrote this Matthew may still have been in Greek and Mark was in Rome, unlike Luke who seem to be in Greece (just going off memory here). Just because something was written doesn't mean that the internet was present to move all of the information around instantly. There wasn't even a printing press. It took time for all of these writings to be moved about.

* Matthew may have still been in Hebrew/Aramaic.

"The Gospel of Matthew" wasn't written in Hebrew or Aramaic. It was originally written in Greek (Koine Greek). ALL of the New Testament manuscripts were originally written in Greek. The Old Testament was written in a combination of Hebrew and Aramaic.

Papias (bishop of Hieropolis, wrote about 130AD, "Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could."
And yet, aside from the fact that the associates of Papias didn't indicate that they believed he was intellectually sound, Papias can't identify the specific writing. Saying "Matthew wrote about Jesus" is a long way from taking a specific anonymous writing, and accurately identifying it as the work of Matthew. And given that Christians of that time were commonly reading from more than 30 different gospels, the idea that you can pick one and assign it to Matthew with any hope of being correct is beyond absurd.

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in 180 AD:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)
And again, you don't have any clue which gospel that might be, or even if it's a gospel that survived. The church actively attempted to destroy writings which they didn't approve for the Bible canon. They claimed anything they didn't include in the BIble as being "heretical", and warned people against reading it. They destroyed what they could. So Matthew may have written a gospel. He might even have rendered a version in Hebrew. But his work is not the text known as "The Gospel of Matthew" in the Bible.

The oral traditions told us who wrote the Gospels.
No they didn't. There were multiple traditions regarding authorships and no one knows if they were correct. If you look to all 27-books of the New Testament, scholars believe we have accurately identified only two authors. And the gospels are known to be anonymous, with erroneous authors assigned.

So your response is just that since he didn't include a copy of the Gospels being discussed it doesn't count. Whatever. Not worth any further dialogue. Thanks, have a good evening.

The humor here is that you seem to think that you don't look like you're tucking your tail and running away because you've finally figured out that you don't really have a clue. But, being a Christian, you'll never admit that you're wrong.

If you want to do some actual research (which I have done), and bring every scrap of evidence for a historical Jesus you can find, I'll be happy to discuss it with you (since I'm already familiar with it). You'll find that it's comparable to the evidence for a historical Zeus.

As for the gospels, even Christians scholars recognize that the gospels in the Bible are not the word of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. And it's about time you were acquainted with that reality. You have have not a single hint of evidence to support your belief that they are. And I showed you that with the statements you offered from Papais and Iranaeus. It doesn't matter who wrote gospels. It only matters who wrote the ones in the Bible. And the gospels in the Bible weren't written by anyone who knew Jesus. They were simply the ones the men of the 4th century council liked best, and found to be the least diverse. So they assigned names to them and passed them off to gullible Christians for the past 2,000 years. But people who actually engage in the studies of paleography and modern textual criticism have to laugh at the claim that they're the work of the named authors. There simply isn't a shred of credibility to such a claim.

So as I stated, you don't have a single word from Jesus - not one!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire