Total Posts:125|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists, Help Me Out Please

annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have had the following cited for me:

"Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies in particular those that stress Matthew"s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord"s life, depend so heavily on Mark"s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided." - Preface to the Book of Matthew, NIV Study Bible

From that the following conclusions were drawn for us:

Beastt: "The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later."

Beastt: "The fact is, it was recorded as a unanimous vote that Matthew wrote the gospel now known as "The Gospel of Matthew", and the outcome of that vote is noted in the NIV Study Bible."

Beastt: "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'."

Beastt: "So unless you can show that the information regarding the voting on authors is wrong, your argument is simply dead in the water."

Beastt: "They argued about it among themselves for 42 years."

********

Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?

Can any atheist on here take the statement in the NIV Study Bible (or anywhere else) and come up with the conclusion that some folks convened, discussed the matter, then voted on who wrote the Book of Matthew?

If a person knows for sure that a decision was reached as "result of a vote held over 200 years later", shouldn't he be able to tell us when this vote took place, or where it took place, or who voted?

If I say, "There is unanimous consent among scholars that Jerusalem fell in AD 70", does that mean that the scholars got together, bickered about it, and took a vote?

Beastt is concerned that when he gives his evidence, the evidence is ignored. LOL. No, it's not, but it certainly may be questioned and - when weighed in the balance and found wanting - rejected.

******

My response has been (and still is):

"Notice that YOU are the one who said, "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'." YOU are the one who said they convened somewhere, somehow, at some point, and "voted" on it, after 42 years of in-fighting. When asked when, where, and how all of this happened, you don't know!

I simply said that you made it all up. There was no vote on who wrote Matthew or any other book. No group of people ever said "aye" or "nay" regarding authorship.

OF COURSE, I do not consider your statements to be "evidence" - not unless you give some decent evidence, with references, to support them. In other words, your "evidence" is in dire need of some "evidence."

******

Somebody is awfully confused. Help us out here, and please stick to the facts.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 9:47:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
I have had the following cited for me:

"Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies in particular those that stress Matthew"s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord"s life, depend so heavily on Mark"s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided." - Preface to the Book of Matthew, NIV Study Bible

From that the following conclusions were drawn for us:

Beastt: "The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later."

Beastt: "The fact is, it was recorded as a unanimous vote that Matthew wrote the gospel now known as "The Gospel of Matthew", and the outcome of that vote is noted in the NIV Study Bible."

Beastt: "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'."

Beastt: "So unless you can show that the information regarding the voting on authors is wrong, your argument is simply dead in the water."

Beastt: "They argued about it among themselves for 42 years."

********

Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?

Can any atheist on here take the statement in the NIV Study Bible (or anywhere else) and come up with the conclusion that some folks convened, discussed the matter, then voted on who wrote the Book of Matthew?

If a person knows for sure that a decision was reached as "result of a vote held over 200 years later", shouldn't he be able to tell us when this vote took place, or where it took place, or who voted?

If I say, "There is unanimous consent among scholars that Jerusalem fell in AD 70", does that mean that the scholars got together, bickered about it, and took a vote?

Beastt is concerned that when he gives his evidence, the evidence is ignored. LOL. No, it's not, but it certainly may be questioned and - when weighed in the balance and found wanting - rejected.

******

My response has been (and still is):

"Notice that YOU are the one who said, "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'." YOU are the one who said they convened somewhere, somehow, at some point, and "voted" on it, after 42 years of in-fighting. When asked when, where, and how all of this happened, you don't know!

I simply said that you made it all up. There was no vote on who wrote Matthew or any other book. No group of people ever said "aye" or "nay" regarding authorship.

OF COURSE, I do not consider your statements to be "evidence" - not unless you give some decent evidence, with references, to support them. In other words, your "evidence" is in dire need of some "evidence."

******

Somebody is awfully confused. Help us out here, and please stick to the facts.

Why do you seek assistance from atheists?
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 9:53:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 9:47:27 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
I have had the following cited for me:

"Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies in particular those that stress Matthew"s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord"s life, depend so heavily on Mark"s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided." - Preface to the Book of Matthew, NIV Study Bible

From that the following conclusions were drawn for us:

Beastt: "The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later."

Beastt: "The fact is, it was recorded as a unanimous vote that Matthew wrote the gospel now known as "The Gospel of Matthew", and the outcome of that vote is noted in the NIV Study Bible."

Beastt: "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'."

Beastt: "So unless you can show that the information regarding the voting on authors is wrong, your argument is simply dead in the water."

Beastt: "They argued about it among themselves for 42 years."

********

Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?

Can any atheist on here take the statement in the NIV Study Bible (or anywhere else) and come up with the conclusion that some folks convened, discussed the matter, then voted on who wrote the Book of Matthew?

If a person knows for sure that a decision was reached as "result of a vote held over 200 years later", shouldn't he be able to tell us when this vote took place, or where it took place, or who voted?

If I say, "There is unanimous consent among scholars that Jerusalem fell in AD 70", does that mean that the scholars got together, bickered about it, and took a vote?

Beastt is concerned that when he gives his evidence, the evidence is ignored. LOL. No, it's not, but it certainly may be questioned and - when weighed in the balance and found wanting - rejected.

******

My response has been (and still is):

"Notice that YOU are the one who said, "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'." YOU are the one who said they convened somewhere, somehow, at some point, and "voted" on it, after 42 years of in-fighting. When asked when, where, and how all of this happened, you don't know!

I simply said that you made it all up. There was no vote on who wrote Matthew or any other book. No group of people ever said "aye" or "nay" regarding authorship.

OF COURSE, I do not consider your statements to be "evidence" - not unless you give some decent evidence, with references, to support them. In other words, your "evidence" is in dire need of some "evidence."

******

Somebody is awfully confused. Help us out here, and please stick to the facts.

Why do you seek assistance from atheists?

Because a group a theists, no matter how intelligent, who point out all of the logical inconsistencies (and factual errors) would not be taken seriously. However, when your own camp is saying, "Hey, man, you can't read" .... well, you know ....
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 9:59:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
I have had the following cited for me:

"Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies in particular those that stress Matthew"s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord"s life, depend so heavily on Mark"s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided." - Preface to the Book of Matthew, NIV Study Bible

From that the following conclusions were drawn for us:

Beastt: "The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later."

Beastt: "The fact is, it was recorded as a unanimous vote that Matthew wrote the gospel now known as "The Gospel of Matthew", and the outcome of that vote is noted in the NIV Study Bible."

Beastt: "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'."

Beastt: "So unless you can show that the information regarding the voting on authors is wrong, your argument is simply dead in the water."

Beastt: "They argued about it among themselves for 42 years."

********

Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?

Can any atheist on here take the statement in the NIV Study Bible (or anywhere else) and come up with the conclusion that some folks convened, discussed the matter, then voted on who wrote the Book of Matthew?

If a person knows for sure that a decision was reached as "result of a vote held over 200 years later", shouldn't he be able to tell us when this vote took place, or where it took place, or who voted?

If I say, "There is unanimous consent among scholars that Jerusalem fell in AD 70", does that mean that the scholars got together, bickered about it, and took a vote?

Beastt is concerned that when he gives his evidence, the evidence is ignored. LOL. No, it's not, but it certainly may be questioned and - when weighed in the balance and found wanting - rejected.

******

My response has been (and still is):

"Notice that YOU are the one who said, "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'." YOU are the one who said they convened somewhere, somehow, at some point, and "voted" on it, after 42 years of in-fighting. When asked when, where, and how all of this happened, you don't know!

I simply said that you made it all up. There was no vote on who wrote Matthew or any other book. No group of people ever said "aye" or "nay" regarding authorship.

OF COURSE, I do not consider your statements to be "evidence" - not unless you give some decent evidence, with references, to support them. In other words, your "evidence" is in dire need of some "evidence."

******

Somebody is awfully confused. Help us out here, and please stick to the facts.

I was under the impression that the "According to Matthew" was widely accepted to have been added in the second century--and that Papias of Hierapolis is the "first one" who is recorded to have claimed it was Matthew's. IIRC, nowhere does the author claim to be Matthew. Doesn't it even use third person--as in "Jesus called to Matthew" instead of "Jesus called to ME"?

I have no idea about this vote, though--are they talking about the Council of Nicea?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:08:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 9:59:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
I have had the following cited for me:

"Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies in particular those that stress Matthew"s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord"s life, depend so heavily on Mark"s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided." - Preface to the Book of Matthew, NIV Study Bible

From that the following conclusions were drawn for us:

Beastt: "The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later."

Beastt: "The fact is, it was recorded as a unanimous vote that Matthew wrote the gospel now known as "The Gospel of Matthew", and the outcome of that vote is noted in the NIV Study Bible."

Beastt: "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'."

Beastt: "So unless you can show that the information regarding the voting on authors is wrong, your argument is simply dead in the water."

Beastt: "They argued about it among themselves for 42 years."

********

Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?

Can any atheist on here take the statement in the NIV Study Bible (or anywhere else) and come up with the conclusion that some folks convened, discussed the matter, then voted on who wrote the Book of Matthew?

If a person knows for sure that a decision was reached as "result of a vote held over 200 years later", shouldn't he be able to tell us when this vote took place, or where it took place, or who voted?

If I say, "There is unanimous consent among scholars that Jerusalem fell in AD 70", does that mean that the scholars got together, bickered about it, and took a vote?

Beastt is concerned that when he gives his evidence, the evidence is ignored. LOL. No, it's not, but it certainly may be questioned and - when weighed in the balance and found wanting - rejected.

******

My response has been (and still is):

"Notice that YOU are the one who said, "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'." YOU are the one who said they convened somewhere, somehow, at some point, and "voted" on it, after 42 years of in-fighting. When asked when, where, and how all of this happened, you don't know!

I simply said that you made it all up. There was no vote on who wrote Matthew or any other book. No group of people ever said "aye" or "nay" regarding authorship.

OF COURSE, I do not consider your statements to be "evidence" - not unless you give some decent evidence, with references, to support them. In other words, your "evidence" is in dire need of some "evidence."

******

Somebody is awfully confused. Help us out here, and please stick to the facts.

I was under the impression that the "According to Matthew" was widely accepted to have been added in the second century--and that Papias of Hierapolis is the "first one" who is recorded to have claimed it was Matthew's.

That would be true.

I have no idea about this vote, though--are they talking about the Council of Nicea?

Heck if I know. All I've been given is the quote from the NIV Study Bible. As far as I know, no council (or non-council) ever voted on authorship of any NT book.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:07:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
I have had the following cited for me:

"Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies in particular those that stress Matthew"s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord"s life, depend so heavily on Mark"s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided." - Preface to the Book of Matthew, NIV Study Bible

From that the following conclusions were drawn for us:

Beastt: "The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later."

Beastt: "The fact is, it was recorded as a unanimous vote that Matthew wrote the gospel now known as "The Gospel of Matthew", and the outcome of that vote is noted in the NIV Study Bible."

Beastt: "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'."

Beastt: "So unless you can show that the information regarding the voting on authors is wrong, your argument is simply dead in the water."

Beastt: "They argued about it among themselves for 42 years."

********

Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?

Can any atheist on here take the statement in the NIV Study Bible (or anywhere else) and come up with the conclusion that some folks convened, discussed the matter, then voted on who wrote the Book of Matthew?

If a person knows for sure that a decision was reached as "result of a vote held over 200 years later", shouldn't he be able to tell us when this vote took place, or where it took place, or who voted?

If I say, "There is unanimous consent among scholars that Jerusalem fell in AD 70", does that mean that the scholars got together, bickered about it, and took a vote?

Beastt is concerned that when he gives his evidence, the evidence is ignored. LOL. No, it's not, but it certainly may be questioned and - when weighed in the balance and found wanting - rejected.

******

My response has been (and still is):

"Notice that YOU are the one who said, "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'." YOU are the one who said they convened somewhere, somehow, at some point, and "voted" on it, after 42 years of in-fighting. When asked when, where, and how all of this happened, you don't know!

I simply said that you made it all up. There was no vote on who wrote Matthew or any other book. No group of people ever said "aye" or "nay" regarding authorship.

OF COURSE, I do not consider your statements to be "evidence" - not unless you give some decent evidence, with references, to support them. In other words, your "evidence" is in dire need of some "evidence."

******

Somebody is awfully confused. Help us out here, and please stick to the facts.

The fact is that if Bible is the word of God then it should not be that confused in the first place. It should be clear. Which by the way it isn't.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:44:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:07:46 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
I have had the following cited for me:

"Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies in particular those that stress Matthew"s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord"s life, depend so heavily on Mark"s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided." - Preface to the Book of Matthew, NIV Study Bible

From that the following conclusions were drawn for us:

Beastt: "The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later."

Beastt: "The fact is, it was recorded as a unanimous vote that Matthew wrote the gospel now known as "The Gospel of Matthew", and the outcome of that vote is noted in the NIV Study Bible."

Beastt: "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'."

Beastt: "So unless you can show that the information regarding the voting on authors is wrong, your argument is simply dead in the water."

Beastt: "They argued about it among themselves for 42 years."

********

Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?

Can any atheist on here take the statement in the NIV Study Bible (or anywhere else) and come up with the conclusion that some folks convened, discussed the matter, then voted on who wrote the Book of Matthew?

If a person knows for sure that a decision was reached as "result of a vote held over 200 years later", shouldn't he be able to tell us when this vote took place, or where it took place, or who voted?

If I say, "There is unanimous consent among scholars that Jerusalem fell in AD 70", does that mean that the scholars got together, bickered about it, and took a vote?

Beastt is concerned that when he gives his evidence, the evidence is ignored. LOL. No, it's not, but it certainly may be questioned and - when weighed in the balance and found wanting - rejected.

******

My response has been (and still is):

"Notice that YOU are the one who said, "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'." YOU are the one who said they convened somewhere, somehow, at some point, and "voted" on it, after 42 years of in-fighting. When asked when, where, and how all of this happened, you don't know!

I simply said that you made it all up. There was no vote on who wrote Matthew or any other book. No group of people ever said "aye" or "nay" regarding authorship.

OF COURSE, I do not consider your statements to be "evidence" - not unless you give some decent evidence, with references, to support them. In other words, your "evidence" is in dire need of some "evidence."

******

Somebody is awfully confused. Help us out here, and please stick to the facts.

The fact is that if Bible is the word of God then it should not be that confused in the first place. It should be clear. Which by the way it isn't.

Then by all means help him out. He needs it. Badly. After all, we have the word of an atheist that the authorship of the book of Matthew was determined by the 'aye votes', after 42 years of bickering, over 200 years after the book was composed.

Is this a good example of atheist evidence?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:50:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
I have had the following cited for me:

"Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies in particular those that stress Matthew"s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord"s life, depend so heavily on Mark"s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided." - Preface to the Book of Matthew, NIV Study Bible

From that the following conclusions were drawn for us:

Beastt: "The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later."

Beastt: "The fact is, it was recorded as a unanimous vote that Matthew wrote the gospel now known as "The Gospel of Matthew", and the outcome of that vote is noted in the NIV Study Bible."

Beastt: "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'."

Beastt: "So unless you can show that the information regarding the voting on authors is wrong, your argument is simply dead in the water."

Beastt: "They argued about it among themselves for 42 years."

********

Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?

Can any atheist on here take the statement in the NIV Study Bible (or anywhere else) and come up with the conclusion that some folks convened, discussed the matter, then voted on who wrote the Book of Matthew?

If a person knows for sure that a decision was reached as "result of a vote held over 200 years later", shouldn't he be able to tell us when this vote took place, or where it took place, or who voted?

If I say, "There is unanimous consent among scholars that Jerusalem fell in AD 70", does that mean that the scholars got together, bickered about it, and took a vote?

Beastt is concerned that when he gives his evidence, the evidence is ignored. LOL. No, it's not, but it certainly may be questioned and - when weighed in the balance and found wanting - rejected.

******

My response has been (and still is):

"Notice that YOU are the one who said, "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'." YOU are the one who said they convened somewhere, somehow, at some point, and "voted" on it, after 42 years of in-fighting. When asked when, where, and how all of this happened, you don't know!

I simply said that you made it all up. There was no vote on who wrote Matthew or any other book. No group of people ever said "aye" or "nay" regarding authorship.

OF COURSE, I do not consider your statements to be "evidence" - not unless you give some decent evidence, with references, to support them. In other words, your "evidence" is in dire need of some "evidence."

******

Somebody is awfully confused. Help us out here, and please stick to the facts.

Bladerunner makes the same point I would have in that the author of Matthew was thought to be anonymous and only later was it attributed to Matthew by Church tradition.

I have seen this claim by Beastt, but I have not read any book which supports this claim. Admittedly, I have not read the amount of books you and Beastt have, but I cannot say he is wrong. I have been very curious how he came about this evidence. I do not feel your request for him to back up this claim is inappropriate. Perhaps, Beastt can point us in the right direction.

I am reading a commentary on Matthew right now, so I will revisit this part and get back to you with what it says about the authorship.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 11:55:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:50:15 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
I have had the following cited for me:

"Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies in particular those that stress Matthew"s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord"s life, depend so heavily on Mark"s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided." - Preface to the Book of Matthew, NIV Study Bible

From that the following conclusions were drawn for us:

Beastt: "The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later."

Beastt: "The fact is, it was recorded as a unanimous vote that Matthew wrote the gospel now known as "The Gospel of Matthew", and the outcome of that vote is noted in the NIV Study Bible."

Beastt: "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'."

Beastt: "So unless you can show that the information regarding the voting on authors is wrong, your argument is simply dead in the water."

Beastt: "They argued about it among themselves for 42 years."

********

Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?

Can any atheist on here take the statement in the NIV Study Bible (or anywhere else) and come up with the conclusion that some folks convened, discussed the matter, then voted on who wrote the Book of Matthew?

If a person knows for sure that a decision was reached as "result of a vote held over 200 years later", shouldn't he be able to tell us when this vote took place, or where it took place, or who voted?

If I say, "There is unanimous consent among scholars that Jerusalem fell in AD 70", does that mean that the scholars got together, bickered about it, and took a vote?

Beastt is concerned that when he gives his evidence, the evidence is ignored. LOL. No, it's not, but it certainly may be questioned and - when weighed in the balance and found wanting - rejected.

******

My response has been (and still is):

"Notice that YOU are the one who said, "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'." YOU are the one who said they convened somewhere, somehow, at some point, and "voted" on it, after 42 years of in-fighting. When asked when, where, and how all of this happened, you don't know!

I simply said that you made it all up. There was no vote on who wrote Matthew or any other book. No group of people ever said "aye" or "nay" regarding authorship.

OF COURSE, I do not consider your statements to be "evidence" - not unless you give some decent evidence, with references, to support them. In other words, your "evidence" is in dire need of some "evidence."

******

Somebody is awfully confused. Help us out here, and please stick to the facts.

Bladerunner makes the same point I would have in that the author of Matthew was thought to be anonymous and only later was it attributed to Matthew by Church tradition.

I'm not sure that that could be wholly defended because neither you nor I know what Christians believed about it, say, AD 80 or 90. The first recorded reference to Matthian authorship was early in the 2nd century.

However, the statement "only later was it attributed to Matthew by Church tradition" is a bit of an anachronism. Most likely the work was attributed to Matthew as soon as it was written, and that is where the tradition came from.

I have seen this claim by Beastt, but I have not read any book which supports this claim. Admittedly, I have not read the amount of books you and Beastt have, but I cannot say he is wrong. I have been very curious how he came about this evidence. I do not feel your request for him to back up this claim is inappropriate. Perhaps, Beastt can point us in the right direction.

It would be much appreciated, as I have a feeling that quite a bit of this "evidence" was just made up.

I am reading a commentary on Matthew right now, so I will revisit this part and get back to you with what it says about the authorship.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 12:02:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:44:08 PM, annanicole wrote:

Is this a good example of atheist evidence?

That's not entirely fair, anna--generalizations like this rarely are.

I mean, should I ask if BoG is a good example of theist thinking?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 12:05:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 12:02:46 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:44:08 PM, annanicole wrote:

Is this a good example of atheist evidence?

That's not entirely fair, anna--generalizations like this rarely are.

I mean, should I ask if BoG is a good example of theist thinking?

Not when theists, including me, repeatedly repudiate his nonsensical ramblings as nonsense. In fact, theists are quite possibly rougher on him that atheists. However, I do not see this happening here.

I was simply hoping, actually, that some atheist could point out exactly what he is talking about - and where these oddball statements are coming from. I sure don't see it in the one quote from the NIV Bible that he provided as "evidence".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 12:46:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 9:47:27 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM, annanicole wrote:

: Why do you seek assistance from atheists?

That's a great question. Allow me to fill you in where Anna has been less than fully forthcoming.

She's seeking any manner at all that she might find to try to belittle me. The woman is a complete bee-itch and can't stand going through a minute of her life without proving that to everyone. Somehow, she thinks that people can reach a unanimous decision without comparing opinions. I'm not sure how she thinks that happens, but her very faith in her little fairytale seems to rely on believing that people can openly voice a complete agreement among themselves, without each one voicing agreement. It's just as twisted as her little ploy with this thread.

As far as the evidence goes, she's completely misrepresenting everything. (No surprise there.)

She asked why I didn't think the gospels were reliable accounts for the existence of Jesus and I went through a long list of reasons, from the fact that all of them were anonymous writings, with Mark first being associated with the "Gospel of Mark" in writings from around 150CE while the other three associations seem to have formed in the latter half of the second century.

"Mark" (and the other three as well), were written in Koine Greek, while one would expect Hebrew or Aramaic from the named authors. I listed the fact that the author of "Mark" misquotes the 10 Commandments and attributes comments which Jewish texts are always very clear to attribute to God, instead to Moses.

I offered that over 600 (606, to be more precise), of the 678-verses in "Mark" have direct parallel verses in "Matthew" which demonstrates the extensive copying mentioned by the scholarly preface to "Matthew" in the excerpt from the NIV Study Bible, and yet somehow, she doesn't see that as any kind of evidence that Matthew - who would be claimed as an eyewitness - didn't write it. I further mentioned that "Matthew" contains about 100-verses which match verses in "Luke" and are believed to have been taken (again, not by eye-witness, but) from the "Q". And it should be noted that while nearly every verse in "Mark" was copied in paraphrased form into "Matthew", the author of "Mathew" still took the time to correct the 10 Commandments as well as properly attributing the sayings to God, rather than to Moses. These were obviously seen as glaring errors, to him, and to anyone else familiar with Jewish beliefs and practices, which obviously, the author of "Mark" wasn't. (Mark, however, was a converted Jew.)

Then I went into "Luke" which actually tells us in the first 4-verses that it is not an eye-witness account, even though the Bible and the churches, tend to sell it as though it is. I mentioned that it contains over 300 parallel verses from "Mark", and that it (Luke/Acts) contains information which is only found in three other ancient manuscripts. One of those is "John" and the other two are writings of Flavius Josephus ("Jewish War" and "Antiquity of the Jews"). But the writings of Josephus contain both more accuracy and greater detail, showing that it was the source, and "Luke" and "John" copied from it. This is specifically pointed out in the fact that hundreds of different rebels are referenced, but only three are mentioned by any kind of name. And in one instance, it's a very clear nick-name type reference ("The Egyptian"). And despite the claim of hundreds of rebels, "Luke/Acts", "John" and the works of Josephus all use just those three, and exactly the same names for them.

In addition I explained a particular verse in "Luke" which is clearly a merging of two verses from "Mark". It's notable because the verse contradicts itself. This is found at Luke 9:18 and it claims that Jesus is alone, and with his disciples. If one performs a horizontal reading of "Mark" and "Luke", the two track together until you reach Mark 6:46. At this point, Mark departs to talk about numerous events and miracles that are mentioned nowhere in "Luke". Then at Mark 8:27 (74.5-verses later), the two sync up again. And if we take these two verses from Mark and join them together, we get the parallel verse found in Luke 9:18.

This shows that the author of "Luke" was working from a copy of "Mark", and that his copy had sustained some damage (either damage to the text, or perhaps missing parts). So the author simply merged the first half of Mark 6:46 with the latter half of Mark 8:27, to generate Luke 9:18. Here are the verses;

(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?"

(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?"

This, along with the obvious copying from "Mark" in "John", shows that none of the canonized gospels are eyewitness accounts.

Anna's responseto this rather damning little list of evidence against any proclaimed authority to the gospels is; "What evidence?" She just pretends that there hasn't been any evidence produced to show that none of them are eye-witness accounts. She even states so openly until I finally just stopped responding to her. She had a truck-load of evidence dumped in her lap, and her response is to stare at the sky ignoring that pile of evidence half burying her, and say "what evidence?" just as innocently and inconspicuously as you please. I suppose when you're trying to live a lie and force yourself to swallow an obvious fairytale, lying simply becomes second nature.

And this thread is her way of extending the lie by misrepresenting as though she's just looking for other atheist opinions.

Anna is trying to back-door other atheists, blind-side them, and feed them half-truths and sideways insinuations, seeking to win her failed debate against me, and hoping that other atheists will rush to her aid in believing that she has fairly and accurately conveyed the situation. Obviously, she hasn't.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 12:47:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:55:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:50:15 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
I have had the following cited for me:

"Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies in particular those that stress Matthew"s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord"s life, depend so heavily on Mark"s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided." - Preface to the Book of Matthew, NIV Study Bible

From that the following conclusions were drawn for us:

Beastt: "The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later."

Beastt: "The fact is, it was recorded as a unanimous vote that Matthew wrote the gospel now known as "The Gospel of Matthew", and the outcome of that vote is noted in the NIV Study Bible."

Beastt: "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'."

Beastt: "So unless you can show that the information regarding the voting on authors is wrong, your argument is simply dead in the water."

Beastt: "They argued about it among themselves for 42 years."

********

Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?

Can any atheist on here take the statement in the NIV Study Bible (or anywhere else) and come up with the conclusion that some folks convened, discussed the matter, then voted on who wrote the Book of Matthew?

If a person knows for sure that a decision was reached as "result of a vote held over 200 years later", shouldn't he be able to tell us when this vote took place, or where it took place, or who voted?

If I say, "There is unanimous consent among scholars that Jerusalem fell in AD 70", does that mean that the scholars got together, bickered about it, and took a vote?

Beastt is concerned that when he gives his evidence, the evidence is ignored. LOL. No, it's not, but it certainly may be questioned and - when weighed in the balance and found wanting - rejected.

******

My response has been (and still is):

"Notice that YOU are the one who said, "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'." YOU are the one who said they convened somewhere, somehow, at some point, and "voted" on it, after 42 years of in-fighting. When asked when, where, and how all of this happened, you don't know!

I simply said that you made it all up. There was no vote on who wrote Matthew or any other book. No group of people ever said "aye" or "nay" regarding authorship.

OF COURSE, I do not consider your statements to be "evidence" - not unless you give some decent evidence, with references, to support them. In other words, your "evidence" is in dire need of some "evidence."

******

Somebody is awfully confused. Help us out here, and please stick to the facts.

Bladerunner makes the same point I would have in that the author of Matthew was thought to be anonymous and only later was it attributed to Matthew by Church tradition.

I'm not sure that that could be wholly defended because neither you nor I know what Christians believed about it, say, AD 80 or 90. The first recorded reference to Matthian authorship was early in the 2nd century.

However, the statement "only later was it attributed to Matthew by Church tradition" is a bit of an anachronism. Most likely the work was attributed to Matthew as soon as it was written, and that is where the tradition came from.

I have seen this claim by Beastt, but I have not read any book which supports this claim. Admittedly, I have not read the amount of books you and Beastt have, but I cannot say he is wrong. I have been very curious how he came about this evidence. I do not feel your request for him to back up this claim is inappropriate. Perhaps, Beastt can point us in the right direction.

It would be much appreciated, as I have a feeling that quite a bit of this "evidence" was just made up.

I am reading a commentary on Matthew right now, so I will revisit this part and get back to you with what it says about the authorship.

Moody Gospel Commentary of Matthew, 1997: We get the standard quotes from the early church fathers (which has already been cited) to support the apostle Matthew as the author, and the standard doubts about indefinite statements of place and time which are "irreconcilable with the recollection of an apostolic witness". What we don't have is any mention of the Council of Nicea playing any role in determining the authorship.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 1:22:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 12:47:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:55:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:50:15 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
I have had the following cited for me:

"Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies in particular those that stress Matthew"s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord"s life, depend so heavily on Mark"s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided." - Preface to the Book of Matthew, NIV Study Bible

From that the following conclusions were drawn for us:

Beastt: "The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later."

Beastt: "The fact is, it was recorded as a unanimous vote that Matthew wrote the gospel now known as "The Gospel of Matthew", and the outcome of that vote is noted in the NIV Study Bible."

Beastt: "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'."

Beastt: "So unless you can show that the information regarding the voting on authors is wrong, your argument is simply dead in the water."

Beastt: "They argued about it among themselves for 42 years."

********

Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?

Can any atheist on here take the statement in the NIV Study Bible (or anywhere else) and come up with the conclusion that some folks convened, discussed the matter, then voted on who wrote the Book of Matthew?

If a person knows for sure that a decision was reached as "result of a vote held over 200 years later", shouldn't he be able to tell us when this vote took place, or where it took place, or who voted?

If I say, "There is unanimous consent among scholars that Jerusalem fell in AD 70", does that mean that the scholars got together, bickered about it, and took a vote?

Beastt is concerned that when he gives his evidence, the evidence is ignored. LOL. No, it's not, but it certainly may be questioned and - when weighed in the balance and found wanting - rejected.

******

My response has been (and still is):

"Notice that YOU are the one who said, "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'." YOU are the one who said they convened somewhere, somehow, at some point, and "voted" on it, after 42 years of in-fighting. When asked when, where, and how all of this happened, you don't know!

I simply said that you made it all up. There was no vote on who wrote Matthew or any other book. No group of people ever said "aye" or "nay" regarding authorship.

OF COURSE, I do not consider your statements to be "evidence" - not unless you give some decent evidence, with references, to support them. In other words, your "evidence" is in dire need of some "evidence."

******

Somebody is awfully confused. Help us out here, and please stick to the facts.

Bladerunner makes the same point I would have in that the author of Matthew was thought to be anonymous and only later was it attributed to Matthew by Church tradition.

I'm not sure that that could be wholly defended because neither you nor I know what Christians believed about it, say, AD 80 or 90. The first recorded reference to Matthian authorship was early in the 2nd century.

However, the statement "only later was it attributed to Matthew by Church tradition" is a bit of an anachronism. Most likely the work was attributed to Matthew as soon as it was written, and that is where the tradition came from.

I have seen this claim by Beastt, but I have not read any book which supports this claim. Admittedly, I have not read the amount of books you and Beastt have, but I cannot say he is wrong. I have been very curious how he came about this evidence. I do not feel your request for him to back up this claim is inappropriate. Perhaps, Beastt can point us in the right direction.

It would be much appreciated, as I have a feeling that quite a bit of this "evidence" was just made up.

I am reading a commentary on Matthew right now, so I will revisit this part and get back to you with what it says about the authorship.

Moody Gospel Commentary of Matthew, 1997: We get the standard quotes from the early church fathers (which has already been cited) to support the apostle Matthew as the author, and the standard doubts about indefinite statements of place and time which are "irreconcilable with the recollection of an apostolic witness". What we don't have is any mention of the Council of Nicea playing any role in determining the authorship.

Well, yeah, that sounds about right. I wouldn't question that. I question whether any council, any meeting, any group of men - official or not - convened, argued, bickered, then voted. And the 'ayes' from Matthew carried!

I am simply questioning the accuracy of the "evidence" presented earlier. Nobody has yet pointed out a thing in favor of it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 1:22:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It should also be noted that the entire point of these councils, was to come to an agreement on many of the points which were helping to splinter and confuse Christianity of the 4th century. And voting was one of the major systems employed. For example;

- The Synod of Laodicea (365CE), attempted to reach an agreement on the books of the canon. Can one imagine trying to do so without a vote?

- The Third Council of Carthage (397CE) voted on the adoption of the list of Augustine.

- The Sixth Council of Constantinople (627CE) considered various canons for ratification.

It should also be noted that when it came to the voting on the books for the canon, the results were not anonymous. Far from it. In fact, there was often a large minority who rejected the proposed books. Marcion believed Mark, Matthew and John to be forgeries

As far as the Council of Nicaea, which was a month long, it is known that they decided on;
- The divinity of Jesus (by a vote of 316 to 2)
- The exile of Arius
- Christian passover
- Prohibiting young women in the homes of clerics
- Self-castration
- Usury among clerics
- Kneeling on liturgy and the 50 days of Pentecost
- The removal of priests
- Minimum term established for catechisms
- Recognize honorary rights for the See of Jerusalem
- Establish highest authority for the bishops of Alexandria and Rome
- Establish that two annual Synods were to be held
- Ensure that bishops and presbyters receive Eucharist before deacons
- Invalidate baptism by Pauline heretics

And they voted on these matters, as is shown by the 316 to 2 vote on the divinity of Jesus. And that is how Jesus became God to all of Christianity, while prior to this, Christians were divided, with some believing Jesus to be God, some believing him to be just a man selected as a messenger of God, and some believing him to be some kind of subordinate god to God. In fact, around 318CE, Arius had begun teaching that Jesus most certainly was not God.

Once the Council of Nicaea had established their Nicene Creed, Constantine demanded that anyone refusing to sign be excommunicated and exiled. Arius, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais felt strongly enough in their faith, that they still refused to sign, and as a result they were excommunicated and exiled. The writings of Arius were seen as so damaging to the Christianity established as orthodox by the council, that his works were ordered to be destroyed.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 1:33:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 9:59:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

I was under the impression that the "According to Matthew" was widely accepted to have been added in the second century--and that Papias of Hierapolis is the "first one" who is recorded to have claimed it was Matthew's.
This is correct, however, from what I've read, Papias could only attest to his own claim that he was aware that Matthew had written a gospel. He was unable to specifically identify any of the gospel manuscripts as being the work of Matthew.

IIRC, nowhere does the author claim to be Matthew. Doesn't it even use third person--as in "Jesus called to Matthew" instead of "Jesus called to ME"?
And there is a passage where Jesus saw a tax collector named Matthew, rather than the text stating that Jesus "saw me".


I have no idea about this vote, though--are they talking about the Council of Nicea?
Not just the Council of Nicaea, but many of the councils which were held in the hopes of bring some consistency to Christian beliefs. I'm curious how Anna believes a council of 318 men can come to a unanimous decision, without voting. Even if there was simply a call for dissenters which went unanswered, the principle is still that of a vote. And in that it is stated that there were usually (if not always), a large minority not in favor of the proposed books, we know that in that regard, there was certainly a call for opinions. If one wishes to avoid calling that "a vote", I suppose they could, but I'm not sure how that would change the fact that these decisions about Christianity were simply made by majority opinion.

And if you were of a small enough minority on important matters, you were labeled a heretic and ejected from the council, as happened to Marcion and several others, including Arius.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 1:35:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 10:08:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/1/2014 9:59:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
I have had the following cited for me:

"Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies in particular those that stress Matthew"s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord"s life, depend so heavily on Mark"s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided." - Preface to the Book of Matthew, NIV Study Bible

From that the following conclusions were drawn for us:

Beastt: "The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later."

Beastt: "The fact is, it was recorded as a unanimous vote that Matthew wrote the gospel now known as "The Gospel of Matthew", and the outcome of that vote is noted in the NIV Study Bible."

Beastt: "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'."

Beastt: "So unless you can show that the information regarding the voting on authors is wrong, your argument is simply dead in the water."

Beastt: "They argued about it among themselves for 42 years."

********

Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?

Can any atheist on here take the statement in the NIV Study Bible (or anywhere else) and come up with the conclusion that some folks convened, discussed the matter, then voted on who wrote the Book of Matthew?

If a person knows for sure that a decision was reached as "result of a vote held over 200 years later", shouldn't he be able to tell us when this vote took place, or where it took place, or who voted?

If I say, "There is unanimous consent among scholars that Jerusalem fell in AD 70", does that mean that the scholars got together, bickered about it, and took a vote?

Beastt is concerned that when he gives his evidence, the evidence is ignored. LOL. No, it's not, but it certainly may be questioned and - when weighed in the balance and found wanting - rejected.

******

My response has been (and still is):

"Notice that YOU are the one who said, "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'." YOU are the one who said they convened somewhere, somehow, at some point, and "voted" on it, after 42 years of in-fighting. When asked when, where, and how all of this happened, you don't know!

I simply said that you made it all up. There was no vote on who wrote Matthew or any other book. No group of people ever said "aye" or "nay" regarding authorship.

OF COURSE, I do not consider your statements to be "evidence" - not unless you give some decent evidence, with references, to support them. In other words, your "evidence" is in dire need of some "evidence."

******

Somebody is awfully confused. Help us out here, and please stick to the facts.

I was under the impression that the "According to Matthew" was widely accepted to have been added in the second century--and that Papias of Hierapolis is the "first one" who is recorded to have claimed it was Matthew's.

That would be true.

I have no idea about this vote, though--are they talking about the Council of Nicea?

Heck if I know. All I've been given is the quote from the NIV Study Bible. As far as I know, no council (or non-council) ever voted on authorship of any NT book.

And yet you know that there was a unanimous agreement among some 300-men. So please explain to us how you believe that to have been established without any kind of vote.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 1:39:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:07:46 PM, debateuser wrote:

The fact is that if Bible is the word of God then it should not be that confused in the first place. It should be clear. Which by the way it isn't.

Exactly! And if the members of the council who selected the canon had the miraculous capacity to spot "a divine work", why weren't they instantly in unanimous agreement on which books were divine, and which were not? Why did it take 42-years to establish a canon, and why were members of the council ejected for disagreeing?

And since Anna insists that God performed miracles up to the year 74CE, but has not meddled in any affairs of the physical since that time, how was he able to miraculously bring the council to a rather hard-fought eventual agreement on which writings were "divine" in 367CE? As usual, the claims of Christians and Christianity literally devour themselves when topped with a splash of logic.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 2:11:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:44:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:07:46 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
I have had the following cited for me:

"Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies in particular those that stress Matthew"s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord"s life, depend so heavily on Mark"s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided." - Preface to the Book of Matthew, NIV Study Bible

From that the following conclusions were drawn for us:

Beastt: "The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later."

Beastt: "The fact is, it was recorded as a unanimous vote that Matthew wrote the gospel now known as "The Gospel of Matthew", and the outcome of that vote is noted in the NIV Study Bible."

Beastt: "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'."

Beastt: "So unless you can show that the information regarding the voting on authors is wrong, your argument is simply dead in the water."

Beastt: "They argued about it among themselves for 42 years."

********

Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?

Can any atheist on here take the statement in the NIV Study Bible (or anywhere else) and come up with the conclusion that some folks convened, discussed the matter, then voted on who wrote the Book of Matthew?

If a person knows for sure that a decision was reached as "result of a vote held over 200 years later", shouldn't he be able to tell us when this vote took place, or where it took place, or who voted?

If I say, "There is unanimous consent among scholars that Jerusalem fell in AD 70", does that mean that the scholars got together, bickered about it, and took a vote?

Beastt is concerned that when he gives his evidence, the evidence is ignored. LOL. No, it's not, but it certainly may be questioned and - when weighed in the balance and found wanting - rejected.

******

My response has been (and still is):

"Notice that YOU are the one who said, "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'." YOU are the one who said they convened somewhere, somehow, at some point, and "voted" on it, after 42 years of in-fighting. When asked when, where, and how all of this happened, you don't know!

I simply said that you made it all up. There was no vote on who wrote Matthew or any other book. No group of people ever said "aye" or "nay" regarding authorship.

OF COURSE, I do not consider your statements to be "evidence" - not unless you give some decent evidence, with references, to support them. In other words, your "evidence" is in dire need of some "evidence."

******

Somebody is awfully confused. Help us out here, and please stick to the facts.

The fact is that if Bible is the word of God then it should not be that confused in the first place. It should be clear. Which by the way it isn't.

Then by all means help him out. He needs it. Badly. After all, we have the word of an atheist that the authorship of the book of Matthew was determined by the 'aye votes', after 42 years of bickering, over 200 years after the book was composed.

Is this a good example of atheist evidence?

Why would the authorship of Mathew needed to be determined by humans. Lol.
Religion in human hands . Another example.
By the way why did it take them many years to establish something and not all agreed . Those who disagreed were removed. I did not see any God guiding them to agreement. These are just humans decisions. So now we are supposed to believe in paedophilles conservatives. Lol
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 2:13:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 1:39:30 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:07:46 PM, debateuser wrote:

The fact is that if Bible is the word of God then it should not be that confused in the first place. It should be clear. Which by the way it isn't.

Exactly! And if the members of the council who selected the canon had the miraculous capacity to spot "a divine work", why weren't they instantly in unanimous agreement on which books were divine, and which were not? Why did it take 42-years to establish a canon, and why were members of the council ejected for disagreeing?

And since Anna insists that God performed miracles up to the year 74CE, but has not meddled in any affairs of the physical since that time, how was he able to miraculously bring the council to a rather hard-fought eventual agreement on which writings were "divine" in 367CE? As usual, the claims of Christians and Christianity literally devour themselves when topped with a splash of logic.

If there was any divine agreement then we would not be seeing so many sects in Christianity. Politics is the word to describe it.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 2:16:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 11:44:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/1/2014 11:07:46 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
I have had the following cited for me:

"Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies in particular those that stress Matthew"s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord"s life, depend so heavily on Mark"s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided." - Preface to the Book of Matthew, NIV Study Bible

From that the following conclusions were drawn for us:

Beastt: "The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later."

Beastt: "The fact is, it was recorded as a unanimous vote that Matthew wrote the gospel now known as "The Gospel of Matthew", and the outcome of that vote is noted in the NIV Study Bible."

Beastt: "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'."

Beastt: "So unless you can show that the information regarding the voting on authors is wrong, your argument is simply dead in the water."

Beastt: "They argued about it among themselves for 42 years."

********

Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?

Can any atheist on here take the statement in the NIV Study Bible (or anywhere else) and come up with the conclusion that some folks convened, discussed the matter, then voted on who wrote the Book of Matthew?

If a person knows for sure that a decision was reached as "result of a vote held over 200 years later", shouldn't he be able to tell us when this vote took place, or where it took place, or who voted?

If I say, "There is unanimous consent among scholars that Jerusalem fell in AD 70", does that mean that the scholars got together, bickered about it, and took a vote?

Beastt is concerned that when he gives his evidence, the evidence is ignored. LOL. No, it's not, but it certainly may be questioned and - when weighed in the balance and found wanting - rejected.

******

My response has been (and still is):

"Notice that YOU are the one who said, "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'." YOU are the one who said they convened somewhere, somehow, at some point, and "voted" on it, after 42 years of in-fighting. When asked when, where, and how all of this happened, you don't know!

I simply said that you made it all up. There was no vote on who wrote Matthew or any other book. No group of people ever said "aye" or "nay" regarding authorship.

OF COURSE, I do not consider your statements to be "evidence" - not unless you give some decent evidence, with references, to support them. In other words, your "evidence" is in dire need of some "evidence."

******

Somebody is awfully confused. Help us out here, and please stick to the facts.

The fact is that if Bible is the word of God then it should not be that confused in the first place. It should be clear. Which by the way it isn't.

Then by all means help him out. He needs it. Badly. After all, we have the word of an atheist that the authorship of the book of Matthew was determined by the 'aye votes', after 42 years of bickering, over 200 years after the book was composed.

Is this a good example of atheist evidence?

Did Christians agree which sect is right and which is wrong. If God could guide them in determining the authorship of Matthew then why did not he help them in determining that sects are illogical. Again we are just seeing human decisions and politics at play.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 2:39:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 2:16:43 AM, debateuser wrote:

Did Christians agree which sect is right and which is wrong. If God could guide them in determining the authorship of Matthew then why did not he help them in determining that sects are illogical. Again we are just seeing human decisions and politics at play.

"With the council called to order shall we proceed with the matter at hand; that being the authorship of the 'gospel according to Matthew', and with the understanding that minority dissenters shall be excommunicated, exiled, deemed 'heretics', and their works destroyed, are there any here opposed to holding to the traditional authorship by Matthew?"

Fine then. WIth none against holding to the tradition, let the record reflect that there is no objection to the traditional claim of Matthian authorship and that a vote was not necessary.

...by the will of God it is unanimous. Praise God."
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 4:22:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 1:35:14 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/1/2014 10:08:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/1/2014 9:59:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/1/2014 9:35:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
I have had the following cited for me:

"Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies in particular those that stress Matthew"s alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord"s life, depend so heavily on Mark"s account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided." - Preface to the Book of Matthew, NIV Study Bible

From that the following conclusions were drawn for us:

Beastt: "The authorships came - not as a result of intense textual criticism or comparative study, but as the result of a vote held over 200 years later."

Beastt: "The fact is, it was recorded as a unanimous vote that Matthew wrote the gospel now known as "The Gospel of Matthew", and the outcome of that vote is noted in the NIV Study Bible."

Beastt: "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'."

Beastt: "So unless you can show that the information regarding the voting on authors is wrong, your argument is simply dead in the water."

Beastt: "They argued about it among themselves for 42 years."

********

Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?

Can any atheist on here take the statement in the NIV Study Bible (or anywhere else) and come up with the conclusion that some folks convened, discussed the matter, then voted on who wrote the Book of Matthew?

If a person knows for sure that a decision was reached as "result of a vote held over 200 years later", shouldn't he be able to tell us when this vote took place, or where it took place, or who voted?

If I say, "There is unanimous consent among scholars that Jerusalem fell in AD 70", does that mean that the scholars got together, bickered about it, and took a vote?

Beastt is concerned that when he gives his evidence, the evidence is ignored. LOL. No, it's not, but it certainly may be questioned and - when weighed in the balance and found wanting - rejected.

******

My response has been (and still is):

"Notice that YOU are the one who said, "Look at what you prefer... all those in favor of claiming Matthew wrote it, signify by saying 'Aye'." YOU are the one who said they convened somewhere, somehow, at some point, and "voted" on it, after 42 years of in-fighting. When asked when, where, and how all of this happened, you don't know!

I simply said that you made it all up. There was no vote on who wrote Matthew or any other book. No group of people ever said "aye" or "nay" regarding authorship.

OF COURSE, I do not consider your statements to be "evidence" - not unless you give some decent evidence, with references, to support them. In other words, your "evidence" is in dire need of some "evidence."

******

Somebody is awfully confused. Help us out here, and please stick to the facts.

I was under the impression that the "According to Matthew" was widely accepted to have been added in the second century--and that Papias of Hierapolis is the "first one" who is recorded to have claimed it was Matthew's.

That would be true.

I have no idea about this vote, though--are they talking about the Council of Nicea?

Heck if I know. All I've been given is the quote from the NIV Study Bible. As far as I know, no council (or non-council) ever voted on authorship of any NT book.

And yet you know that there was a unanimous agreement among some 300-men. So please explain to us how you believe that to have been established without any kind of vote.

There was unanimous agreement that Matthew wrote the book, as far as we know, ever since it was written. Within the first 300-400 years of Christianity, nobody ever dissented from that view.

As far as "some 300-men", I have no idea what you are talking about.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 4:24:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
One question asked was, "Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?"

Not a one has yet spoken up in the affirmative - and my humble prediction is that none will.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 5:37:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 4:22:05 AM, annanicole wrote:

There was unanimous agreement that Matthew wrote the book, as far as we know, ever since it was written.
Only in your child-like little world of blind acceptance to every claim from Christian history, Anna. But back in the real world, we find that with a few notable exceptions, most of Christianity didn't even consider Matthew as a potential author until around 180CE. So the gospel was floating around, being copied, changed, altered, and held to be true by thousands of Christians who had no idea who might have written it.
You can't seem to shake (perhaps because you don't wish to), this rosy little picture of Christianity where certain people sat down, wrote out manuscripts, and they were accepted instantly as the word of God, and bound into the Bible.

Within the first 300-400 years of Christianity, nobody ever dissented from that view.
The truth is, within the first 80-100 years that manuscript existed, few even seemed to think to suggest that view.
http://ehrmanblog.org...

And of course, the point to be made (or avoided, in your case), is that the more we learn and the more we examine the text, the less reason there is to accept that proposed authorship as even having any potential to be true. The intellectually unremarkable men of the council, Anna, were NOT more capable of textual criticism or paleography than the top experts today. They picked what they liked, and named authors in the hope of lending credibility to their selections.

As far as "some 300-men", I have no idea what you are talking about.
Because you're either playing stupid, or being sincere. You're trying to claim that no one ever doubted Matthew as the author, practically from the first time the manuscript was written. History shows that not to be at all accurate.

- "In my previous post I showed that the claim that Matthew, the tax-collector, was the author of the Gospel of Matthew (as we continue to call it) cannot be traced earlier than about 180 CE." -- Bart D Ehrman
(And I will admit to a few minor caveats to his statement.)

And the point, Anna...which it seems you wish to evade; is that there is no reason to believe that Matthew (or anyone else who might have known Jesus, had he existed), wrote that manuscript. But rather than take on the whole of the evidence against Matthian authorship, you're trying to hide behind one tiny detail, and avoiding the bulk of the evidence against any of the gospels being written by any actual acquaintance of Jesus. You may well go to your grave still believing that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John wrote the gospels, and the sum total outcome of that is that you will have managed to maintain your delusion - lied to yourself.

Why would anyone accept any of the four gospels of the Bible as being more authoritative than say... the Papyrus Egerton 2?

There were many gospels (over 30 by the 4th century, and many different portrayals of Jesus, and at least as many different religions calling themselves "Christianity". But simply for the fact that a group of men decided they preferred one set of writings over the others, one depiction of Jesus as preferable to the many others, and one particular interpretation of one particular set of writings; you remain forever steadfastly insistent that it must be true.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 5:39:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 4:24:43 AM, annanicole wrote:
One question asked was, "Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?"

Not a one has yet spoken up in the affirmative - and my humble prediction is that none will.

Nor have any indicated to the negative. And YOU still have not responded to how we can determine that the church fathers could be in unanimous agreement, without anyone ever taking a ballot to decide if any dissented.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 5:49:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 4:24:43 AM, annanicole wrote:
One question asked was, "Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?"

Not a one has yet spoken up in the affirmative - and my humble prediction is that none will.

Another question asked was this

Have you abandoned your claim that it was unanimous consent?

without answer?
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 5:52:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 5:37:32 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 4:22:05 AM, annanicole wrote:

There was unanimous agreement that Matthew wrote the book, as far as we know, ever since it was written.
Only in your child-like little world of blind acceptance to every claim from Christian history, Anna. But back in the real world, we find that with a few notable exceptions, most of Christianity didn't even consider Matthew as a potential author until around 180CE.

You'll need to prove that.

So the gospel was floating around, being copied, changed, altered, and held to be true by thousands of Christians who had no idea who might have written it.

You can't seem to shake (perhaps because you don't wish to), this rosy little picture of Christianity where certain people sat down, wrote out manuscripts, and they were accepted instantly as the word of God, and bound into the Bible.

Leave off the "bound into the Bible".


Within the first 300-400 years of Christianity, nobody ever dissented from that view.

The truth is, within the first 80-100 years that manuscript existed, few even seemed to think to suggest that view.
http://ehrmanblog.org...

Then by all means cite the dissenters for us. If you want to suggest the "few believed it", it would be most helpful for you to find 'em.

And of course, the point to be made (or avoided, in your case), is that the more we learn and the more we examine the text, the less reason there is to accept that proposed authorship as even having any potential to be true. The intellectually unremarkable men of the council, Anna, were NOT more capable of textual criticism or paleography than the top experts today. They picked what they liked, and named authors in the hope of lending credibility to their selections.

Once again, you are called up to provide evidence that they "named authors".

As far as "some 300-men", I have no idea what you are talking about.

Because you're either playing stupid, or being sincere. You're trying to claim that no one ever doubted Matthew as the author, practically from the first time the manuscript was written. History shows that not to be at all accurate.

Really? I haven't seen an evidence from you.



And the point, Anna...which it seems you wish to evade; is that there is no reason to believe that Matthew (or anyone else who might have known Jesus, had he existed), wrote that manuscript. But rather than take on the whole of the evidence against Matthian authorship, you're trying to hide behind one tiny detail,

It was a MAJOR DETAIL, a gross error maintained by you on more than one occasion.

Why would anyone accept any of the four gospels of the Bible as being more authoritative than say... the Papyrus Egerton 2?

There were many gospels (over 30 by the 4th century, and many different portrayals of Jesus, and at least as many different religions calling themselves "Christianity". But simply for the fact that a group of men decided they preferred one set of writings over the others, one depiction of Jesus as preferable to the many others, and one particular interpretation of one particular set of writings; you remain forever steadfastly insistent that it must be true.

I can see now that you have no intention of retracting the total nonsense that you posted in regard to a group of men meeting 200 years after-the-fact and deciding authorship by an "aye" vote.

Would you please name for us ONE ... not five or ten ... early Christian who expressed the idea that someone other than Matthew wrote the book? Just put the fella's name here: ______________________________________________ .

You have also adjusted dates for us ... again. The first known reference to Matthean authorship was by Papias, who probably wrote his Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord around AD 100-120. In his notes on Matthew, he said, "Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could." Now that was right at the turn of the 2nd century - not 180 AD. So the belief in Matthean authorship goes back at least that far.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2014 5:57:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/2/2014 5:39:06 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/2/2014 4:24:43 AM, annanicole wrote:
One question asked was, "Does any other atheist on here reach the same conclusions based upon the statement in the NIV Study Bible?"

Not a one has yet spoken up in the affirmative - and my humble prediction is that none will.

Nor have any indicated to the negative. And YOU still have not responded to how we can determine that the church fathers could be in unanimous agreement, without anyone ever taking a ballot to decide if any dissented.

Sure I have! We READ THEIR WORKS! That's how. We read the works of Polycarp, Papias, Tertullian, Iranaeus, Clement of Rome, and all the rest. If the majority say, "Matthew wrote it" - and none dissent - then that's "unanimous consent" or "unanimous agreement."

As far as "nor have any indicated to the negative", I believe that someone said that he does not see any council vote on authorship anywhere. The main thing is that not a one has said, "Oh, I see that" --- and no one will.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."