jaybird18c

THERE IT IS!!! The MOST useless post of the day! Thanks jakee!

The overarching purpose of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is to reveal God and his character to us, specifically (“special revelation,” person) rather than just generally (“general revelation,” creation/conscience) and describes his plan of salvation for his people. What Jesus “taught” was that he is the Son of God, that He is “the way, the truth, and the life,” that “no one comes to the Father but by Him,” that while we were still sinning against him, “He died for us,” and that the only way to Him is to “repent and believe.” > The purpose of the Law is to point you towards him. That is completely missing the point. Self-righteousness does not lead to Jesus. Not by, as you say and I would agree, “saying the right words” and I would add “doing the right things.” Isaiah 64:6 – “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.”

The purpose of the Law isn’t so that you can make attempts at working towards fulfilling it in order to be “good.” Otherwise, the Law isn’t the Law. It’s just good advice. Only God is “good.” The purpose of the Law is to point you towards him.

Not at all. Plenary Inspiration – Men chosen by God, without doing harm to their individual personalities or writing styles, etc., recorded exactly as God intended, being moved along like the wind in the sails of a ship. Therefore, while there is secondarily a human author, there is primarily a divine author. Aside from that, it was early church tradition to not include one’s name as the author. Another example would be with the Apostle John. He’s not mentioned directly as the author of his gospel either. He refers to himself multiple times, however, as the disciple “whom Jesus loved.” This appears to be deliberate. It was most likely to show humility in his relationship with Jesus Christ. Also, all that you mentioned as not being important is actually foundational and absolutely necessary for any of it to mean anything ultimately. You said “What matters is how Jesus lived and what he taught.” Jesus lived a life perfectly fulfilling the requirements of the Law which we could not and “he taught” that he was the Son of God (Emanuel – “God with us”). You also said “in general the effort to do so (with regard to meeting the standard of righteousness) makes you a better person.” Why is being “good” (in this sense self-righteous) if you are already guilty of transgression of the Law?

Draw crowds with entertainment, coffee shops, McDonald's style "play places" for the kids, and messages with weak theology lacking much biblical teaching...but...appeals to the masses because it's what makes them "feel" comfortable and gives them lots of the self-help, self-centered advice most people are looking for with just enough Christianity sprinkled here and there for them to call it a church. But...they do have good coffee!

And just for the record. Not that someone need be a Christian in order to be an excellent biblical scholar but it does help with understanding their point of view. I have questions as to whether or not the author of a religious history book I had to read for a seminary class was actually a Christian. However, it was one of the best historical books I've read on the topic. Bart Ehrman is a self-proclaimed "atheist and agnostic" biblical scholar.

The canonicity of Matthean authorship of this gospel were unchallenged in the early church. Eusebius (ca. A.D. 265-339) quotes Origen (ca. A.D. 185-254): Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism (Ecclesiastical History, 6:25). It is clear that this gospel was written at a relatively early date – prior to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Some scholars have proposed a date as early as A.D. 50. - Dr. John MacArthur

The Gospel According to Matthew Author Although this Gospel does not name its author, some early manuscripts have the inscription “according to Matthew,” and Eusebius (c. A.D. 260-340) tells us that the early church father Papias (c. A.D. 60-130) spoke of Matthew as having arranged the “oracles about Jesus. Subsequent tradition is unanimous that the disciple Matthew also called Levi (9:9-13; Mark 2:13-17), was the author of this Gospel, and not until the eighteenth century was this tradition doubted. There are some problems with the tradition. First, Papias apparently said that Matthew “arranged the oracles in the Hebrew dialect.” This statement seems to indicate that Matthew wrote in Hebrew and Aramaic and scholars point out that Matthew does not read like a translation from these languages. It is also quite similar to Mark which was certainly written in Greek. It is possible that Matthew wrote in both Hebrew and Greek, much as Calvin wrote works in both Latin and French. Secondly, since Papias did not say “gospel” but “oracles,” some have identified these “oracles” as one of the sources lying behind our Gospels. But Eusebius appears to have understood “oracles” to mean “gospel,” and Irenaeus (writing about A.D. 180) speaks of a “gospel” by Matthew written “for the Hebrews in their own dialect.” Other objections to Matthew’s authorship are more speculative. Some suggest that the Gospel may have been the product of a group of writers (“school”). Its alleged dependence on Mark and supposedly late composition are given as reasons to doubt Matthew’s authorship. But these objections do not disprove the tradition that Matthew was the sole author. Since the author did not identify himself, he probably thought that it was not essential for his readers to know his name. Working through the human author was the primary author, the Holy Spirit. Date and Occasion The earliest reference to the Gospel of Matthew is probably in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans by Igatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 110). Almost no one dates the book alter than A.D 100. Some scholars have dated it as early as A.D. 50, but many critics date it after the destruction of Jerusalem, usually between 80 and 100. Their reasons include the assumption that Jesus could not have predicted such future events as the destruction of Jerusalem, the view that the Gospel’s Trinitarian theology (28:19 and exalted Christology (11:27) are late ideas that developed in a Hellenistic environment, and the assertion that the word “Rabbi” (mentioned in 23:5-10) was not used as a title before A.D. 70. Some of these reasons, such as that Jesus could not have predicted the future or that a high Christology is Hellenistic and therefore late are highly dubious and reflect a rejection of supernatural revelation. Further, there is some evidence in the context of the book that Matthew was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The Gospel warns against the Sadducees, a group that rapidly declined from prominence after A.D. 70 and ultimately ceased to exist. The language used to describe the destruction of Jerusalem in ch. 24 reflects Old Testament prophecies of the divine judgment that Jesus foresaw as connected with the coming of His kingdom. There is no need to explain the content of ch. 24 as the author’s memory of a historical event. The writer of this Gospel probably used the Gospel of Mark. Assuming that Mark was composed with the help of the apostle Peter in Rome, an appropriate date for Matthew would be between A.D. 64 and 70. Antioch in Syria is the most likely location for the writing of the Gospel and for the church for which it was originally composed. Ignatius, the earliest writer to quote Matthew, was bishop of Antioch. The congregation in Antioch was mixed Jewish and Gentile origin (Acts 15), and this would account for the problems of legalism and antinomianism that Matthew particularly addresses. - Dr. R.C. Sproul

The new testament was written on an Assyrian troll farm. It was written to upset the Romans. The same way that you are trolling us about "evidence". Brilliant! Are you upset?

The traditional view is that Matthew authored the Gospel of Matthew. https://crossexamined.org/wrote-gospel-matthew/ https://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

The Roman soldiers were tasked with ensuring his death. You could postulate lots of crazy stuff but it doesn't fit the circumstance.

The authors of the gospels, except for Luke, were contempraries of Jesus.

Exactly the same way we know santa claus is real. Ha! Ha! Good one! Ha!

After crucifixion, the Roman soldiers would spear them in the side to ensure death. Jesus was speared in the side in this manner.

I did say that there are unexplainable things in the Bible. The resurrection, for example. However, there are eye-witness accounts that it occurred. Just because I don't understand how it happened and it's not revealed in scripture how it happened doesn't mean that it didn't.

How do we know the Bible is true? (Dr. Ravi Zacharias) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fngw6Br65BI

It's like stirring up an atheist hornet nest. Awesome! Busy now but will respond later.

QuoteOf course you believe that stuff. But how do you know? To be credible why not precede your statements with: I believe or my guess is or something similar? First - How do I know? 1. Inner witness of the Holy Spirit. 2. Preponderance of the evidence. Second - I don't need to seek your approval. Although, as Christians, we are to give answers for what we believe, truth does not need my defense. Truth stands whether or not either of us believe. And the truth is you will have to give an account one day for every thought, word, and deed in this lifetime.

I can't convince you of anything. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. But that first requires humility. Not much of that around here. The Bible isn’t clear on everything. It was not intended nor is it necessary. However, those things necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are clear (perspicuity/clarity of scripture). Any punishment you would receive isn't even comparable to that which Jesus endured on your behalf on the cross. Apples to oranges. You are equivocating the two in asking which you would prefer as if you were even on the same playing field. You're not. It's like asking would I rather be something impossible for me to be as opposed to something else. It's just a stupid question. Maybe I should have just said that was a stupid question. Is that better? I never said "God crushed God" and neither does scripture.

I can’t have it both ways but God apparently can. Trinity – God in three persons. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. God in essence. Individual in person. I also can’t explain it. If that’s what does it for you, then so be it. It is what it is. There are big topics like that which are unexplainable. Another big one would be the Incarnation. I’m saying both. Now that’s a “false equivalence.” Again. Trinity. Unexplainable. The Bible refers to stuff like that as a mystery. Nothing wrong with that. It just means we can’t understand it, as intended. Not really. Those would just be nonsensical statements.

God is neither male nor female. He is spirit. Reference in the masculine has to do with role or position rather than sex. Jesus is also presented that way because the culture was set up that way. The male represented his family line. He was the authority or head of household. He was responsible for them “Federal Headship.” He was the protector, the provider, etc.

Jesus never relinquished his deity or ceased to be God in essence. Jesus is God in the flesh (e.g. Emmanuel). Fully God (e.g. Trinity) and fully human. Both of which were necessary in order to accomplish what was required to pay what was owed. He never stopped being “like God,” as you put it. He humbled himself, choosing to put aside some of his attributes for a time (Philippians 2:7). This was necessary for him to adequately represent us and to be a substitute (propitiation). His being fully human was demonstrated in that he anguished and cried tears of blood in anticipation of what was required. He even asked the Father if the task could be removed from him. Yet he was obedient. He also asked why God had forsaken him as he hung on the cross. The reason Jesus’ sacrifice was worthy and yours wouldn’t be is because his worth is incomprehensible. He is worth more than all of us put together and that’s not even a good comparison. That was demonstrated by his being raised from the dead by God himself, vindicating his sacrifice. Also, the bible says that “It pleased Yahweh to crush him.” Jesus paid the fine you owe by enduring the wrath of God himself. If you don’t repent, you’ll just go to hell forever.

Man was created in the image of God. That means we were created to be like him in that we have the ability to share many of his attributes (communicable attributes). The “fruits of the spirit” would be an example. They include but aren’t limited to Joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. On the other hand, there are attributes which are his alone (incommunicable attributes). An example of these would be omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence. There are many more. I quoted Psalm 50:21. It means that although God has demonstrated much patience allowing time to repent, his patience is not without limit and justice will be done. He is NOT like fallen man with indifference to sin.

Mistake #1: Assuming you are like God (Psalm 50:21). It's not possible to compare human suffering to that of Jesus as the hands of God on our behalf, even an eternity in hell.

The bible isn't explicit on this topic. However, it does imply that children of believers before an age of understanding and, therefore, accountability are somehow covered by grace. An example would be with King David when his child died and he said "He cannot come to me, but I shall go to him." A scriptural typeological parallelism being between King David and Jesus. As for others, it just isn't clear. So an assumption can't be made either way, in my opinion. I would think, at least for the most part, the principal would still apply. However, an answer can only be given in as much as scripture reveals. Most likely. No. We have no way to even comprehend the immesurable suffering Jesus endured on the cross. Much more happened there than merely that which occured at the hands of Roman soldiers.