The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel

Jeremiah prophesied God would bring the children of Jacob back home.
I don't find anything about a king could you point it out in the passage above.If you will read the passage real close you will not see where it says how God will bring them back just that He will. They are there Israel is a nation. God's prophesy delivered by Jeremiah is fulfilled. Whether you like it or not.They will have a King a short time after the world leader I prophesied about stands in the Temple and declares himself to be God and must be worshiped. The king's name is Jesus. Make a note so if you are around you will remember this prophesy. Could you point me to the book with the story about Matthew's resurrection. Since he died in 60 AD and would have had to come back to life to write it after the fact.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

You are assuming that the disciple Matthew wrote anything. What we have is the Gospel according to Matthew, which is an anonymous work.Do you know the date of the earliest gMat we have?

quote:

---

You are assuming that the disciple Matthew wrote anything. What we have is the Gospel according to Matthew, which is an anonymous work.

---

Hear hear. Misplaced sarcasm by ICANT when one considers that contemporary biblical scholarship places the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew at the end of the first century by an anonymous author.
Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Do you know the date of the earliest gMat we have?

---

I suspect ICANT can't tell you that.

All four Gospels are anonymous, a fact that isn't publicised very often. I suspect that he can tell me it is dated long after 70 CE.I also suspect that this will make no difference to his view that it was written before that date.

quote:

---

All four Gospels are anonymous, a fact that isn't publicised very often.

---

As I pointed out earlier, the notion that the motley crew known as the disciples were following Jesus around taking notes is just silly.

No, only if you think that unsubstantiating is something that could be done. You either have to prove your claim, or have reasons to disprove the other claim. I have reasons to toss your stuff out, it is not supported. In fact, I can't remember if you even have any stuff. What do you have, then? Doubt? Personal incredulity? That is negative. Good luck with proving that, no matter how logical it might be in your head.

Whenever the final gathering of records into a book came, it matters not. We had the records already, and we knew that that record was Matthew's. You have given no reason, as is becoming your motis operendi here, to doubt it. Well, that means your negative dreams are worthless. Work on that.

I don't believe I made any claims at all - just challenged your claim that the dates etc. could be substantiated - which you still haven't done. All you do is go back to the text itself and that is circular logic. You can't prove the accuracy of the text with the text. Again, it is not up to me to disprove your claim - it us up to you to prove your claim. Ball is still in your court as it has been all along.

quote:

---

we knew that that record was Matthew's.

---

Who is "We"? Actually WE don't know that. That is not the consensus of modern Biblical scholars, anyway. Not if you mean the disciple Matthew. In fact, WE really don't know much about the authorship of any of the Gospels. There is little evidence that any of them were authored by disciples of Jesus.

I can understand why you would not make such notes.But why do you conclude from your prospective what someone else would do.I have folks in my congregation that never take notes.I have several if I wanted to know what I preached on at any service since I became pastor of the congregation could take their notes and tell you what I preached. If I misstated something the question they asked and how I answered it.So don't compare what others may or may not do to what you think they would or would not do.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I can tell you it was written before Matthews death but you have made up your mind by reading what Atheist and so-called christian's have said about it. So there is no point.Irenaeus, quoted Papias, a follower of John and a companion of Polycarp as quoted by Eusebius. So Papias existed.He said Matthew was written in Hebrew. This dates to 60 AD.Irenaeus (130-200) (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2): said Matthew brought forth a written gospel in Hebrew while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome.That would put it prior to 60 AD.Origen (185-254) (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4) , said Matthew a former tax collector and apostle of Jesus wrote Matthew in Hebrew (Aramaic).Now just brush all that aside and say it is just christian tradition if you want.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

I can understand why you would not make such notes.

​

But why do you conclude from your prospective what someone else would do.

---

It has nothing to do with what I would do in the 21st century. It has everything to do with what mostly illiterate followers of Jesus would do in the 1st century with the writing technology which was available.Writing was a profession (why do you think they were called scribes?)- not something the average joe would/could do.Even if someone were literate, writing instruments, paper, etc. were expensive and cumbersome - not something you could carry around like a reporter's notebook and ballpoint pen.

quote:

---

Irenaeus, quoted Papias, a follower of John and a companion of Polycarp as quoted by Eusebius. So Papias existed.

​

He said Matthew was written in Hebrew. This dates to 60 AD.

​

Irenaeus (130-200) (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2): said Matthew brought forth a written gospel in Hebrew while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome.

---

So you have true believer folks quoting true believer folks who were quoting other true believer folks. And then you have modern unbiased biblical scholarship with ability to do linguistic and textual analysis. The unbiased biblical scholars say Matthew was written in Greek. The true believer folks quoting true believer folks say it was written in Hebrew. Hmmm. (Balance motions with right and left hands) Whom to believe?The antiintellectualism of fundamentalist literalism is breathtaking to behold.

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but to critical scholarship it matters a great deal. For example, if you could produce a contemporary gMat then that would give you a strong argument, as it is though, what is the earliest extant gMat, is it 300 or 400 years after Jesus died? That gives ample time for editing.We know it doesn't matter to you, as you are really not interested in reconstructing as accurate a history as we can, but to people who are truly interested in rebuilding the past the date of writing is very important. 'We' actually have a great many variant copies of all of the Gospels, which shows that they really weren't viewed as authoratative for a few centuries. Early xians certainly never put as much faith in these texts as you do. Indeed we don't. That is why the book is entitled 'according to Matthew'. There is no good reason to suppose its author(s) even knew Jesus. Given no reason for what?All I have asked is for you to tell me the oldest text of gMat that we have, and just like when I asked you the same question about Daniel's book, you really do not have a clue, so you dance around, waving your arms, showing your lack of subject knowledge, and we are supposed to be impressed.Why not just answer a Simple (get it? )question for a change without the smoke screens?Do you know the earliest gMat in existence that mentions the Temple 'prophecy'? Maybe if you answered the question I wouldn't need to keep asking the same thing over and over and over and over again. I didn't say I doubted anything, I only asked you the date of the oldest gMat text, then all your paranoia kicks in. Simple, everything you have ever posted at this site only demonstrates an ignorance of a collection of texts you explicitly adore far more than you adore the Man that 27 books of it are about.

quote:

---

Irenaeus, quoted Papias, a follower of John and a companion of Polycarp as quoted by Eusebius. So Papias existed.

​

He said Matthew was written in Hebrew. This dates to 60 AD.

​

Irenaeus (130-200) (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2): said Matthew brought forth a written gospel in Hebrew while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome.

​

That would put it prior to 60 AD.

---

They said that Matthew produced a collection of sayings, written in Hebrew. The Gospel we are talking about is not a collection of sayings and it is written in Greek. Clearly they are not the same document.