By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mazty on 11 April 2013
Edit Thread
Slimebeast said:
Mazty said:

Not sure where you got that, but it's not right:
 For many reasons scholars today believe otherwise—for example, the gospel is based on Mark, and "it seems unlikely that an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry, such as Matthew, would need to rely on others for information about it"[7]—and believe instead that it was written between about 80–90 AD by a highly educated Jew (an "Israelite", in the language of the gospel itself), intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values.[1]

Can you please respond to the issue we're discussing?

The thing you're quoting about the gospel of Matthew doesn't put in question anything I said. Instead it's another confirmation that the New Testament is written <50 years after the event instead of the 300 years like you ridiculously claimed.


Dear oh dear oh dear....

First of all the Bible wasn't "written" 300+ years after the events as the Bible is a collection of books rather than a book itself. The Bible however was composed, as in all the books, were put together 300+ years later meaning that various accounts in various forms had been floating around. When we mix that fact in with the fact that a lot of the books were not written by eye witnesses, go figure how valid the accounts in it are. 

This thread is just fucking rediculous. It's amazing the level of ignorance surrounding the creation of the Bible - are you religious by any chance? Because very few people seem educated in anyway as to the origins of the New Testament.