- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Luke refers (1:1-3) to previous accounts (plural) of the gospel and of his as a more ordered one, so his can neither be first or second. Some scholars are now coming full circle and accepting an early Matthew.
For example:
J.B.Orchard, Matthew, Luke and Mark, 1976
John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, H&S, 1991
John A.T.Robinson, Redating the New Testament, SCM, 1976
Carsten Peter Thiede, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1996Quote (david @ Nov. 10 2007,17:01) Modern scholars normally relegate Matthew and indeed the other gospels to after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. W H Y
??This is due to their denial of prophecy when Jesus' predicts the fall of Jerusalem.
For them to believe that it was written before this date, they'd have to recognize that Jesus' prophecy was true.
Or the anonymous and non-eyewitness writer of Matthew put that “prophecy” into the dialogue for his character Jesus after the event.Stuart
Quote (david @ Nov. 09 2007,23:59) Eusebius, writing in the 3rd century, favoured 41 A.D. as the time of writing of Matthew. Subscriptions in a number of manuscripts later than the tenth century say that this Gospel was written about the eighth year after Jesus’ ascension. (c. 41 C.E.).
This does not conflict with the internal evidence, since the account ends with Jesus’ commissioning of disciple makers in 33 C.E. and says nothing about Jerusalem’s destruction at Roman hands in 70 C.E.
Sources are always appreciated.Quote (Stu @ Nov. 10 2007,04:53) Quote (david @ Nov. 10 2007,17:01) Modern scholars normally relegate Matthew and indeed the other gospels to after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. W H Y
??This is due to their denial of prophecy when Jesus' predicts the fall of Jerusalem.
For them to believe that it was written before this date, they'd have to recognize that Jesus' prophecy was true.
Or the anonymous and non-eyewitness writer of Matthew put that “prophecy” into the dialogue for his character Jesus after the event.Stuart
I've always wondered why the gospels had to be anonymous. Perhaps because the originals did not have 1/2 of what the final product had?Quote (david @ Nov. 10 2007,00:03) Luke refers (1:1-3) to previous accounts (plural) of the gospel and of his as a more ordered one, so his can neither be first or second. Some scholars are now coming full circle and accepting an early Matthew. For example:
J.B.Orchard, Matthew, Luke and Mark, 1976
John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, H&S, 1991
John A.T.Robinson, Redating the New Testament, SCM, 1976
Carsten Peter Thiede, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1996Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 11 2007,03:41) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 10 2007,04:53) Quote (david @ Nov. 10 2007,17:01) Modern scholars normally relegate Matthew and indeed the other gospels to after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. W H Y
??This is due to their denial of prophecy when Jesus' predicts the fall of Jerusalem.
For them to believe that it was written before this date, they'd have to recognize that Jesus' prophecy was true.
Or the anonymous and non-eyewitness writer of Matthew put that “prophecy” into the dialogue for his character Jesus after the event.Stuart
I've always wondered why the gospels had to be anonymous. Perhaps because the originals did not have 1/2 of what the final product had?
Who ever the writers maybe.The Jews of the Savior's day spoke Hebrew >>or some say its sister language Aramaic<<. They held nothing but animosity for the heathen Greeks and the Hellenization policy of the Seleucid rulers. Why would the Jewish Apostles be writing in Greek under these circumstances and social tensions? What average Jew could or would want to read Greek writings (even if the Apostles could write Greek, which most could not)? Some Alexandrian Jews had resettled in Judea and did speak Aramaic.But inagain anything that was was Jewish was burned..So in my humble opinion something happen 2000 years ago..
I smell a cover up…
Quote Or the anonymous and non-eyewitness writer of Matthew put that “prophecy” into the dialogue for his character Jesus after the event. For no apparent reason, many “scholars” date Matthew at 70C.E. Why this date? There seems to be only one reason, as far as I can tell–
It has to be that date (or later) for their world to make sense. Otherwise, Jesus made an actual true prophecy.
“Early church evidence
The early churchman, Papias, wrote that “Matthew wrote down the sayings in Hebrew and each translated it as he was able”, (Eusebius, H.E. [the History of the Church], 3.39; cf. 3.24).“Matthew published a written gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their passing, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter. Luke … . Lastly, John …” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.2; cf. Eusebius, H.E., 5.8)
Pantaenus, c.180s, an early church missionary and Bible scholar, travelled to India to preach the gospel but found that the apostle Bartholomew had gone there before and left behind Matthew's gospel,
“in the actual Hebrew characters” (Eusebius, H.E., 5.10; cf. Jerome, De.Vir.Ill. 36).
Origen, around the end of the 2nd century, wrote in his commentary on Matthew that he only accepted,
“the traditional view of the four gospels which alone are undeniably authentic in the church of God on earth. First to be written was that of the one-time exciseman who became an apostle of Jesus Christ – Matthew; it was published for believers of Jewish origin, and was composed in Hebrew letters/language. Next came that of Mark, who followed Peter's instructions in writing it … Next came that of Luke, who wrote for Gentile converts … Last of all came John's.” (Origen cited in Eusebius, H.E., 6.25).
Athanasius and Epiphanius (Synops. sacr. Script. p. 134. Vol. 2.; Contra Haeres. 1. Haer. 29. & 30) confirm the above traditions as does Jerome (4th century, Catalog. Script. Eccles fol. 90. Tom. 1. ad Hedib. fol. 46. Tom. 3).
The early Arabic, Persian and Syriac manuscript versions also assert the original primacy and Hebrew language of Matthew.
Matthew's is the only gospel apart from John's which was written by an original apostle of the 12. Are we really to think that the one who heard Jesus' words in person had to copy Mark's second-hand reporting of Peter or Luke's 3rd hand narrative via Paul?
Carsten Thiede recently reviewed some manuscript fragments of Matthew's gospel and redated them to sometime in the 40s or 50s because of a number of reasons. Firstly, the writing style was that of a scribal copyists hand which was not used later. More interestingly, the name of Jesus was written ΙΣ rather than ΙΕΣΟΥΣ, i.e., 'J-S' rather than 'Jesus', in English transliteration. This is similar to the Jewish practice of rendering Yahweh as YHVH, YH or YY. This implies that the author of Matthew was Jewish, of an early date, and probably writing before the major influx of gentiles into the church after Acts 11/15.
The actual date of Matthew
The time when this Gospel was written is said by some (Vid. Fabricii Biblioth. Graec. 4.5. sect. 2. p. 197 & Vales. not. in Euseb. Eccl. Hist. p. 52; cf. 3.24,39) to be in the eighth or ninth, by others, in the fifteenth year after the ascension of Christ. This is in part based upon Irenaeus' comment above about Peter's preaching in Rome, held by traditionalists to be A.D. 42 (the second year of Claudius by one tradition (Eusebius Chronicle 153), of Peter's going to “another place” (Acts 12:17) and building a foundation for the church of Rome (Romans 15:20-24) and the year of the apostles' dispersion from Jerusalem), some 9 or 12 years after the ascension depending on the date of that in 30/33. The dates have varies considerably from A.D. 33 (A 6th century writer) to 150! Eusebius, writing in the 3rd century, favoured A.D. 41.Modern scholars normally relegate Matthew and indeed the other gospels to after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This is due to their denial of prophecy when Jesus' predicts the fall of Jerusalem. Even for those that accept a pre-70 date, Mark is 99% of the time considered to be first, with Matthew and Luke copying later. Luke refers (1:1-3) to previous accounts (plural) of the gospel and of his as a more ordered one, so his can neither be first or second. Some scholars are now coming full circle and accepting an early Matthew. For example:
J.B.Orchard, Matthew, Luke and Mark, 1976
John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, H&S, 1991
John A.T.Robinson, Redating the New Testament, SCM, 1976
Carsten Peter Thiede, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1996Further proofs of the priority of Matthew
Deuteronomy 6:5 appears to divide man up into “heart, soul and might”, however only Matthew preserves the 3-fold imagery, Luke and Mark, writing later, realise that in Greek a 4-fold example is necessary to fully translate the sense.* “heart, soul and mind” (Matthew 22:37)
* “heart, soul, mind and strength” (Mark 12:30)
* “heart, soul, strength and mind” (Luke 10:27)In Jesus' words about the 'end' or the destruction of Jerusalem, he says “pray that your flight will not be in winter” (Mark 13:18) but Matthew gives a fuller version, adding, “or on a Sabbath” (Matthew 24:20). This fact would not likely be added by Matthew if he was copying Mark, rather the reverse is true. Matthew's additional statement would only be relevant to his Jewish readers.
The Didache ('teaching of the 12 apostles', an early Christian writing) refers to a single gospel as either 'his' or 'the' gospel in existence and which is closest in form to Matthew (Didache 8:2; 11:3; 15:3; 15:4; cf. John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, SCM, 1976). Both the Didache and Matthew are sometimes considered to have derived from Syrian Antioch, a thriving early church base from which Paul's missionary journeys began.
Matthew also contains the most typically Jewish passages (e.g., 5:18f.; 10:5; 15:26; 18:17; 23:2f.).
http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/hebrewgospel.htmQuote (Unisage @ Nov. 11 2007,04:56) But inagain anything that was was Jewish was burned..So in my humble opinion something happen 2000 years ago.. I smell a cover up…
Rev 2:8 ¶ And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan.Inside Job
Quote (charity @ Nov. 10 2007,20:37) Quote (Unisage @ Nov. 11 2007,04:56) But inagain anything that was was Jewish was burned..So in my humble opinion something happen 2000 years ago.. I smell a cover up…
Rev 2:8 ¶ And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan.Inside Job
It wasn't the Jews who had the various writings it was the early Roman church.Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 11 2007,13:43) Quote (charity @ Nov. 10 2007,20:37) Quote (Unisage @ Nov. 11 2007,04:56) But inagain anything that was was Jewish was burned..So in my humble opinion something happen 2000 years ago.. I smell a cover up…
Rev 2:8 ¶ And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan.Inside Job
It wasn't the Jews who had the various writings it was the early Roman church.
yes… Who's Luke?Who's Mark?
for a eye witness reports….these men are not recorded as the lords chosen disiples..I do realize that they have been given authority and high honour from the hands of control
Placed nicely…God never promised to remove the wicked out of our way?
For as much as it’s worth
They have brought sacrifices to curse the nations, EVEN using Christs new government, THE seats for control.
And..Millions of dollars has got us a view
Or anther mans view?Yet within all they have delivered to us eat, that has brought destruction and desolation
The blessing is
The Injustice is waiting also to be found hidden in the motives of the hand writers, that all may be revealed in patience. ‘According to scripture, the Narrow way shall become a high way, and ears that were closed shall hear…
Isa 35:5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
Isa 35:6 Then shall the lame [man] leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.
Isa 35:7 And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, [shall be] grass with reeds and rushes.
Isa 35:8 ¶ And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it [shall be] for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err [therein].
Isa 35:9 No lion shall be there, nor [any] ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk [there]:
Isa 35:10 And the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.charity
Charity That is a prophecy that is for the millenium and the Highway of Holiness is one multitude of Saints that will walk there and they will finally will know all truths. No more confusion, like right now. Jesus and His elect will be teaching them. What a wonderful prophecy this is.
Peace and Love Mrs.
Quote (IM4Truth @ Nov. 11 2007,16:14) Charity That is a prophecy that is for the millenium and the Highway of Holiness is one multitude of Saints that will walk there and they will finally will know all truths. No more confusion, like right now. Jesus and His elect will be teaching them. What a wonderful prophecy this is. Peace and Love Mrs.
Psa 45:6 Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom [is] a right sceptre.
Isa 9:7 Of the increase of [his] government and peace [there shall be] no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.God bless..this covenent
David
++”For no apparent reason, many “scholars” date Matthew at 70C.E. Why this date? There seems to be only one reason, as far as I can tell–It has to be that date (or later) for their world to make sense. Otherwise, Jesus made an actual true prophecy.
This is pot calling kettle black of the most cart-before-the-horse kind! You are accusing historians of having an agenda, without evidence. You fail to acknowledge the equal argument that a traditional view HAS to have Matthew written before 70CE, based on the premise that there is no prophetic power in predicting things with hindsight. You must therefore appreciate why real scientists no longer bother to discuss creationism in public with young-earth creationists (or old-earth, or Idiots) – the earth HAS to be 6000 years old because otherwise scripture is wrong, and all creationist arguments begin from that mythological premise.
Talk about trying to have it both ways!
A. It could be any date, and the conventional methods historians have of dating and comparing writing suggests 70-100CE.
B. It has to be before 70CE, otherwise the prophecy isn’t a prophecy (this it the pattern of revisionist thinking seen throughout the history of the Catholic church).
C. It has to be after 70CE, we just can’t allow anything that might suggest a successful prophecy.
You would choose the conspiracy theory, C?!
I go very strongly for A, with the possibility that it was written before 70CE.Stuart
Quote the earth HAS to be 6000 years old because otherwise scripture is wrong You're somewhat forgetful. I spent some time trying to show you various definitions of the word “day.”
One such definition of that word is “epoch.”
Remember?
We know that the Genesis account isn't speaking about 24 hour days because the genesis account itself lumps all the days into one, calling it one day.
Therefore, the account itself makes plain it's not talking about 24 hour days.The Math:
24+24+24, etc does not equal 24.An epoch plus an epoch plus an epoch, etc can equal an epoch.
Quote A. It could be any date, and the conventional methods historians have of dating and comparing writing suggests 70-100CE.
If by “conventional” you mean: The date it has to be for that not to be a prophecy, yes.Quote B. It has to be before 70CE, otherwise the prophecy isn’t a prophecy (this it the pattern of revisionist thinking seen throughout the history of the Catholic church).
You know, there is actually evidence to support this.The time when this Gospel was written is said by some (Vid. Fabricii Biblioth. Graec. 4.5. sect. 2. p. 197 & Vales. not. in Euseb. Eccl. Hist. p. 52; cf. 3.24,39) to be in the eighth or ninth, by others, in the fifteenth year after the ascension of Christ. This is in part based upon Irenaeus' comment above about Peter's preaching in Rome, held by traditionalists to be A.D. 42 (the second year of Claudius by one tradition (Eusebius Chronicle 153), of Peter's going to “another place” (Acts 12:17) and building a foundation for the church of Rome (Romans 15:20-24) and the year of the apostles' dispersion from Jerusalem), some 9 or 12 years after the ascension depending on the date of that in 30/33. The dates have varies considerably from A.D. 33 (A 6th century writer) to 150! Eusebius, writing in the 3rd century, favoured A.D. 41.
Modern scholars normally relegate Matthew and indeed the other gospels to after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This is due to their denial of prophecy when Jesus' predicts the fall of Jerusalem. Even for those that accept a pre-70 date, Mark is 99% of the time considered to be first, with Matthew and Luke copying later. Luke refers (1:1-3) to previous accounts (plural) of the gospel and of his as a more ordered one, so his can neither be first or second. Some scholars are now coming full circle and accepting an early Matthew. For example:
J.B.Orchard, Matthew, Luke and Mark, 1976
John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, H&S, 1991
John A.T.Robinson, Redating the New Testament, SCM, 1976
Carsten Peter Thiede, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1996Carsten Thiede recently reviewed some manuscript fragments of Matthew's gospel and redated them to sometime in the 40s or 50s because of a number of reasons. Firstly, the writing style was that of a scribal copyists hand which was not used later. More interestingly, the name of Jesus was written ?? rather than
???, i.e., 'J-S' rather than 'Jesus', in English transliteration. This is similar to the Jewish practice of rendering Yahweh as YHVH, YH or YY. This implies that the author of Matthew was Jewish, of an early date, and probably writing before the major influx of gentiles into the church after Acts 11/15.
http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/hebrewgospel.htmQuote (david @ Nov. 11 2007,02:21) Quote the earth HAS to be 6000 years old because otherwise scripture is wrong You're somewhat forgetful. I spent some time trying to show you various definitions of the word “day.”
One such definition of that word is “epoch.”
Remember?
We know that the Genesis account isn't speaking about 24 hour days because the genesis account itself lumps all the days into one, calling it one day.
Therefore, the account itself makes plain it's not talking about 24 hour days.The Math:
24+24+24, etc does not equal 24.An epoch plus an epoch plus an epoch, etc can equal an epoch.
Quote A. It could be any date, and the conventional methods historians have of dating and comparing writing suggests 70-100CE.
If by “conventional” you mean: The date it has to be for that not to be a prophecy, yes.Quote B. It has to be before 70CE, otherwise the prophecy isn’t a prophecy (this it the pattern of revisionist thinking seen throughout the history of the Catholic church).
You know, there is actually evidence to support this.The time when this Gospel was written is said by some (Vid. Fabricii Biblioth. Graec. 4.5. sect. 2. p. 197 & Vales. not. in Euseb. Eccl. Hist. p. 52; cf. 3.24,39) to be in the eighth or ninth, by others, in the fifteenth year after the ascension of Christ. This is in part based upon Irenaeus' comment above about Peter's preaching in Rome, held by traditionalists to be A.D. 42 (the second year of Claudius by one tradition (Eusebius Chronicle 153), of Peter's going to “another place” (Acts 12:17) and building a foundation for the church of Rome (Romans 15:20-24) and the year of the apostles' dispersion from Jerusalem), some 9 or 12 years after the ascension depending on the date of that in 30/33. The dates have varies considerably from A.D. 33 (A 6th century writer) to 150! Eusebius, writing in the 3rd century, favoured A.D. 41.
Modern scholars normally relegate Matthew and indeed the other gospels to after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This is due to their denial of prophecy when Jesus' predicts the fall of Jerusalem. Even for those that accept a pre-70 date, Mark is 99% of the time considered to be first, with Matthew and Luke copying later. Luke refers (1:1-3) to previous accounts (plural) of the gospel and of his as a more ordered one, so his can neither be first or second. Some scholars are now coming full circle and accepting an early Matthew. For example:
J.B.Orchard, Matthew, Luke and Mark, 1976
John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, H&S, 1991
John A.T.Robinson, Redating the New Testament, SCM, 1976
Carsten Peter Thiede, The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1996Carsten Thiede recently reviewed some manuscript fragments of Matthew's gospel and redated them to sometime in the 40s or 50s because of a number of reasons. Firstly, the writing style was that of a scribal copyists hand which was not used later. More interestingly, the name of Jesus was written ?? rather than
???, i.e., 'J-S' rather than 'Jesus', in English transliteration. This is similar to the Jewish practice of rendering Yahweh as YHVH, YH or YY. This implies that the author of Matthew was Jewish, of an early date, and probably writing before the major influx of gentiles into the church after Acts 11/15.
http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/hebrewgospel.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_papyrus================================================
P64 was originally given a third century date by Charles Huleatt, the one who donated the Manuscript to Magdalen College, and then papyrologist A. S. Hunt studied the manuscript and dated it to the early fourth century. But in reaction to what he thought was far too late a dating for the manuscript, Colin Roberts published the manuscript and gave it a dating of ca. 200, which was confirmed by three other leading papyrologists: Harold Bell, T. C. Skeat and E. G. Turner [1], and this has been the general accepted date of P64 since.But in late 1994, considerable publicity surrounded Carsten Peter Thiede's redating of the Magdalen papyrus to the last third of the 1st century, optimistically interpreted by journalists. His official article appeared in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik the following year. The text for the layman was cowritten with Matthew d'Ancona and presented as The Jesus Papyrus, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1996. Thiede's re-dating has generally been viewed with skepticism by established Biblical scholars.
Philip Comfort and David Barret in their book Text of the Earliest NT Greek Manuscripts argue for a more general date of 150-175 for the manuscript, and also for P4 and P67, which they argue came from the same codex. P4 was used as stuffing for the binding of “a codex of Philo, written in the later third century and found in a jar which had been walled up in a house at Coptos [in 250].”[2]. If P4 was part of this codex, then the codex may have been written roughly 100 year's prior or earlier.[3] Comfort and Barret also show that P4/64/67 has affinities with a number of late second century papyri.[4]
Comfort and Barret “tend to claim an earlier date for many manuscripts included in their volume than might be allowed by other palaeographers.”[5] The Novum Testamentum Graece, a standard reference for the Greek witnesses, lists P4 and P64/67 separately giving the former a date of the 3rd century, while the latter is assigned ca. 200.[6]
Quote (david @ Oct. 28 2007,07:45) Hashem: in Judaism, a substitute word used when referring to God in contexts other than prayers or scriptural readings, because the name for God is considered too holy for such use. Did those who wrote the Bible consider God's name “too holy” for use?
Are we not told countless times to praise God's name?
Why is it in there (the Hebrew scriptures) close to 7000 times?
So now you admit that the bible has Errors and has been tampered with?Even if they did change the names..What still can be proven that Jesus is still not the correct name.
How so? In the Old Testament the Messiah name was foretold as Joshua but why do people call him Jesus in the New Testament?
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)
But yet continue in the New Testament we find the errors of the name still given..I guess Matthew is not sure either.
Isaiah 7:14
14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.Matthew 1:23
23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.Matthew 1:25
25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.Matthew 1:21
21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
David
Re 6000 year-old earth: I did say Young-Earth creationists. Are you one of those?
I do remember you previously bending the meanings of english words beyond breaking point in the typical christian-apologetic way.Quote
A. It could be any date, and the conventional methods historians have of dating and comparing writing suggests 70-100CE.++”If by “conventional” you mean: The date it has to be for that not to be a prophecy, yes.
OK. I give up. You know for a fact that Matthew cannot possibly have been written after 70CE because that would mean Jesus did not prophecise the destruction of Jerusalem. Your creationist-style thinking has defeated my curiosity on the subject. I personally don’t see the same razor-sharp importance of 70CE that you do, obviously. Why is it that open and interesting questions like this are shut down by mindless christian non-arguments and conspiracy theories, when actually those accused of conspiracy have no reason to conspire, whereas those doing the accusing do?
Stuart
But it is still argued among the Scholars about the destruction of the city.Some say it happen at 70 Ad and other say the year of 55/56 AD. But the Book of Matthew some say he wrote it around the year 80 AD. What this tell me no one knows for certain.
But in again show me a Jew who really have time to write when most of them were scatterd aboard? As History recall..1000s of Jews were killed there belonging were burn.
The spoil of war has put the word of God out of its truth.Amos 8:11-13 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord GOD, “When I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine for bread or a thirst for water, But rather for hearing the words of the LORD. {12} “And people will stagger from sea to sea, And from the north even to the east; They will go to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, But they will not find . {13} “In that day the beautiful virgins And the young men will faint from thirst.
Quote (Unisage @ Nov. 13 2007,02:46) But it is still argued among the Scholars about the destruction of the city.Some say it happen at 70 Ad and other say the year of 55/56 AD. But the Book of Matthew some say he wrote it around the year 80 AD. What this tell me no one knows for certain.
But in again show me a Jew who really have time to write when most of them were scatterd aboard? As History recall..1000s of Jews were killed there belonging were burn.
The spoil of war has put the word of God out of its truth.Amos 8:11-13 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord GOD, “When I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine for bread or a thirst for water, But rather for hearing the words of the LORD. {12} “And people will stagger from sea to sea, And from the north even to the east; They will go to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, But they will not find . {13} “In that day the beautiful virgins And the young men will faint from thirst.
And in the days that this thirst come upon the earth, as they rushed to complete the execution, God caused the sun to Go down at noon, that they that where observing their faith, were caught in their own law…. A Man off the cross by sun setAmo 8:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord GOD, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day:
In which John loves to not show the Panic that was on the faces because of the darkness closing in…and continues to serve the vinegar a gall to us today? not to mention in the dark In The Dark?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
