An atheist reads Matthew 2

playlist for Matthew: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on-nlr3vrWo&feature=&p=F8F126D6CDFB06F...
in Matthew 2, the author tries to prove that Jesus is the messiah with the help of numerous prophecies.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• matthew2

[anonymouz23232]

i dont understand you people are you really so blind? or are you willfuly ignorant? the bible was written by men. followers of christ. who saw that jesus preached good things. do i need to say more? jesus was a peaceloving man who had repect for the bad ,sick people and cripples he loved everyone and wanted everybody to be a little more loving but what do you do with his preaching you laugh at him and call him names what does that make you? completely wicked.

[TheLittleDonkey]

@anonymouz23232 well thank you. If you are do not believe that the bible is the inerrant, inspired word of god to his creation, this series is not meant for you, but thank you for your attention.

[hoopersghost]

One of the reasons I decided Jesus couldn't have been the Jewish Messiah--his own followers taking bits and pieces of the Hebrew Bible out of context decades after Jesus' death. Matthew flat-out makes up at least one quote, and most of the others weren't originally meant as prophecies (let alone references to a Messiah).

[TheLittleDonkey]

@hoopersghost that is true, even the most famous ones, like the prohpecy about Immanuel actually refers to the time in which the prophet lived, and the King James version also mistranslated "young woman" into "virgin" to make Matthew look better. Not to mention that Jesus wasn't even ever called Immanuel.

[TruthSurge]

One thing, make your text over pics easier to read (maybe make it white or use an an outline effect). That narrator you use sucks. hahahah man, they just pick people who they think sound good based on what they've heard billions of times on bogus Christian media.

BTW, are you atheist or Muslim? you sound sort of Middle-Eastern so I was wondering. Lots of Muslims are into disproving the NT and the gospels which is fine by me. :)

[TheLittleDonkey]

@TruthSurge good points! (all of them in both your comments) regarding your question, I am an atheist, and Swedish, so English isn't my first language. I do however love to listen to the qur'an.

[sarabellumm]

@TeesByTruthSurge "Luke relied upon Josephus and his Antiquities of the Jews was not published until 95CE."

That premise has been widely challenged. Both could easily be relying on similar widely circulated accounts.

[sarabellumm]

"As long as ANY scholar believes Matthew is first, that's good enough..."

I never said I believed Matthew was 1st. I would lean towards Mark. I just pointed out it is not as settled an issue as you implied. It is not a "fact", there are respected scholars who believe Matthew first. And the oldest references from church fathers say it was first. You said impugned those scholars reputations claiming they had "no evidence" even when you knew the earliest Christian writings said Matthew was 1st

[sarabellumm]

@TeesByTruthSurge  That Erhman book isn't a scholarly work and doesn't claim to be. Paul could of course read Hebrew as could Matthew. So explain why Paul used the Septuagint as well? He was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, yet he didn't hesitate to use the Septuagint. That just shows the Septuagint's use was widely accepted. Jesus used it to. There is no reason to single Matthew out regarding its use.

[sarabellumm]

"Why did Matthew rely on the Greek OT if he was Jew and wrote his original in Hebrew?"

So did Paul, do you doubt Paul was a Jew? While Hebrew versions may be used in the temple, the language used throughout the Roman Empire was Greek. Because of this, the best Jewish scholars came together and translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, known as the Septuagint by 200BC. That was the best seller commercially available. That is what Jesus and all his apostles quote from, not just Matthew.

[sarabellumm]

"Luke wrote Luke and Acts in the 2nd century"

Conservative scholars say late 60s and others say the 80s. The 2nd century is not possible.

"There is NO evidence any gospel of Matthew existed that was in Hebrew or any other language"

Some scholars argue for a Hebrew original based on the certain aspects of the language in it. And again, if you know of Irenaeus saying: "Matthew also published a gospel in writing among the Hebrews in their own language." where do you get off saying no evidence?

[sarabellumm]

@TeesByTruthSurge Yes. Irenaeus thought so highly of the four gospels he compared them to the four directions North, South, East and West. This just re-emphisizes their importance to the early church and their acceptance as devinely inspired. 

[sarabellumm]

@TeesByTruthSurge "I'm well-aware of Irenaeus' opinions on Matthew"

Then your slander of the scholars who refute Markan priority is inexcusable. You made it sound like there was no evidence at all. You might want to at least have conceded that the first church father to address the subject said from personal knowledge that Matthew was first. He also left it open as to whether Luke or Mark was before the other, so you can't accuse him of wanting a particular order.

[sarabellumm]

In Against Heresies 3.1.1, Irenaeus says "Matthew also published a gospel in writing among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter & Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome. But after their death, Mark, the disciple & interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what Peter used to preach. And Luke, Paul's associate, also set down in a book the gospel that Paul used to preach. Later, John, the Lord's disciple ... also set out the gospel while ....".