Mathew's gospel exposed: Part 1

Series with professor Don Hagner

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Faith
• History
• Jesus
• New
• Testament
• God

[MegaVldmr]

@smb12321 Totally agree, except that Mark is complete. It it the complete gospel, with it's particular depiction of Jesus. It's Greek is not sophisticated. Something you would expect from low-class peasant(like one of early followers of Jesus') who found someone who barely can write to write down the story.

[MegaVldmr]

@sinverb It's just old stuff they teach in fundamentalists seminaries.

The author have foreseen the events. Actually this statement just can't withstand fair examination.

[MegaVldmr]

@Ousias1 Well, thanks for the link to the NET Bible, i'll check it out.

[Ousias1]

@MegaVldmr You have not read me carefully. I have the utmost respect for Mark's Gospel, including the very much authentic phrase "Son of God" in the first verse which is denied by people who don't respect our earliest and most reliable manuscripts. The external and internal evidence for it is much stronger and the absence of it in a handful of manuscripts is easily accounted for. See the relevant footnote in the NET Bible which is available online.

[MegaVldmr]

@Ousias1 That's right, Mark 1:1 "Son of God" is probably not authentic. Some of early manuscripts do not contain it.

You talk quite disrespectfully about the earliest and MOST RELIABLE gospels available to us.

[MegaVldmr]

There is absolutely no reason to think that gospel of Matthew was written by the Matthew disciple or even any other guy named Matthew.

Guy who wrote the gospel clearly took one half of the gospel from Mark and another from oral tradition, like virgin birth in Bethlehem, with addition of his own thoughts.

Luke did similar thing, and he also added his own thoughts, so Matthew and Luke strongly contradict each other.

[Ousias1]

@smb12321 Occam's Razor suggests that we should conclude that you have not read the Synoptic Gospels very closely. That is the simplest explanation for why you think John taught that jesus was the Christ, the divine Son of God, while Matthew, Mark and Luke did not. BTW, does your copy of the rough, short, patchy, and incomplete Gospel include chapter one verse one? "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD..." (Mark)

[smb12321]

There is zero evidence that the disciples (or later followers) wrote or were even interested in writing such religious pleadings as the Gospels. Why not apply the infamous Occam's Razor rule. Each Gospel represented a particular geographic AND chronological view of Jesus.

Thus the first one was rough, short, patchy and incomplete (Mark). Luke & Matt expanded the myth with virgin birth, angels, a new ending. John replaced the Jewish rabbi with a pagan divine son of God, a Christ.

[sinverb]

An interesting and new take on the dating and origin of the gospels. Its brave to step out of the status quo and date them earlier. Good work and nice observation.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Thanks for this and your other videos :)