Quote:

---

WHOA-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A!!!! Let me get this straight. In plain language --- you do NOT believe that unbeleivers go to hell for eternal punishment. Is that correct? Why did it take you so many months to finally say that? If, in fact, that is your position now, I congratulate you.

---

You are getting confused. Saying unbelievers go to hell is not the same thing as saying that is WHY they go to hell. They do not go because of unbelief. They go because of breaking the laws of God. If you would take the time to read carefully, you would see that I stated that very thing above.

"People perish because they have broken God's laws and are guilty before Him..It is by faith in the finished work of Christ that we are rescued from judgement and given free access to God. People are condemned for sin, but saved by faith.

Quote:

---

No, whether people break God's laws or they don't, ALL people perish, even saints and holy people.

---

That seems to be a very strange statement. Wouldn't even a casual reading of John 3:16 show you that? Perhaps you thought I meant "perish" as in "die"? I meant it to be used as it is in the John passage.

Quote:

---

That is your religious belief, it is not the belief of many millions of other people."

---

It is the teaching of the Bible. I blundered across this in 2 Thessalonians this morning. "when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with [f]His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be glorified [g]in His [h]saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed."

Quote:

---

That does not change the FACT that the earliest manuscript is from the 3rd century, time enough to edit/embellish the Gospel to be in tune with the understanding of Christ at that time.

---

You changed the subject. I replied to this statement. "Jl's reply was a little misleading. He may not be aware of some facts about the Gospel of Matthew. The work is attributed to Matthew but there's no evidence he actually wrote it." That statement is not even close to being accurate.

As to the date of Matthew, the third century only applies if you are looking for complete manuscripts. Papayrus P104 is a small fragment of Matthew dated to the second century. And if you are going to apply your standard of reliability to all of ancient writings, then you can't depend on any of it. The textual evidence for the NT is fantastically greater than that of other ancient texts. Nothing else even comes close. The textual evidence for the accurate copying of the NT is also tremendous.

Wondergirl, if you don't want to answer questions, then don't you think you shouldn't ask them? That's really a strange approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Wondergirl, if you don't want to answer questions, then don't you think you shouldn't ask them? That's really a strange approach.

---

I HAVE answered!

This is what you call an answer???

Quote:

---

Why do you continue to hit me with this and wonder what I believe? I'm a preacher's kid, for years a Lutheran grade school teacher, a Sunday school teacher, and an adult Bible class teacher, a psychotherapist who is always ready to bring into the discussion Jesus' two greatest commandments.

---

The question was what you believed about what Jesus said in Matthew 25. You have not answered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

This is what you call an answer???



The question was what you believed about what Jesus said in Matthew 25. You have not answered.

---

I figured you'd connect the dots.

I did. No answer. But you can just come out and explicitly answer it whenever you are ready. For that matter, even hinting at an answer would be a step forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I did. No answer.

---

wonderful now we can move on from switch and bait

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I did. No answer. But you can just come out and explicitly answer it whenever you are ready. For that matter, even hinting at an answer would be a step forward.

---

I DID answer it!!!!!! I'm guessing you want to make sure all my i's are dotted and t's are crossed so I don't end up in that hellfire forever.

Btw, where's trump going to end up?

Quote:

---

I DID answer it!!!!!! I'm guessing you want to make sure all my i's are dotted and t's are crossed so I don't end up in that hellfire forever.

Btw, where's trump going to end up?

---

Wow. I don't know what else to say but "wow". Incredible that you actually seem to believe that the reply below really contains an answer to the question of what you thought about the words of Christ in the Matthew 25 passage.

Why do you continue to hit me with this and wonder what I believe? I'm a preacher's kid, for years a Lutheran grade school teacher, a Sunday school teacher, and an adult Bible class teacher, a psychotherapist who is always ready to bring into the discussion Jesus' two greatest commandments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You're asking me, so here's my answer. It's all about gods, but only one can be about God. Choose wisely. The essentials of the Christian faith are so wildly different from other religions that they cannot be reconciled.

---

I suspect there are fundies like you who don't want it reconciled. Of course I think it the case on all sides even though the majority have lived in peace and prosperity for centuries like good humans should despite their differences. I think that's what a loving God that I understand requires most and not the predilection for some humans to castigate the others over contrived BS! This is the essence of respect and dignity in my view and a foundation for peace between the tribes, so while I reject your premise for non reconciliation as to wild a difference, I must point out the commonality that binds us...our shared humanity.

Even the Catholics and Protestants have ceased hostilities so what was up with that bloody conflict amongst Christians? Hopefully in time you will evolve to that level of human enlightenment. Embrace the love and reject the hate as your God has clearly directed you. I fail to see what's so hard about that.

I echo WG's question of is the dufus going to hell for his sins or will we get justice for his crimes?

Quote:

---

Even the Catholics and Protestants have ceased hostilities so what was up with that bloody conflict amongst Christians? Hopefully in time you will evolve to that level of human enlightenment. Embrace the love and reject the hate as your God has clearly directed you. I fail to see what's so hard about that.

---

You are confusing two different issues.

Quote:

---

I echo WG's question of is the dufus going to hell for his sins or will we get justice for his crimes?

---

It always amuses me how so many people are convinced it's the other guy who should be judged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Wow. I don't know what else to say but "wow". Incredible that you actually seem to believe that the reply below really contains an answer to the question of what you thought about the words of Christ in the Matthew 25 passage.

---

Who made you interpreter, chief inquisitor, judge, and jury? Doesn't that same Bible also say something about this sort of thing?

P.S. This isn't how to be a fisher of men (and women).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You are confusing two different issues.

---

HOW?

Quote:

---

It always amuses me how so many people are convinced it's the other guy who should be judged.

---

Glad you're amused and so am I at you ducking and dodging not rocks, but questions. This whole thread was hijacked by your scripture quoting about who gets judged and how and now you seek to turn it around to us being the judge.

Drop the crap Slick, and answer the question why don't you? Where do YOU think the dufus is going, heaven or you know that other place with the fire for criminals, liars, cheats, adulterers, and unbelieving heathens.

Quote:

---

HOW?

---

You are confusing the exclusivity of the Christian faith with being hateful. They are not the same.

Quote:

---

Glad you're amused and so am I at you ducking and dodging not rocks, but questions. This whole thread was hijacked by your scripture quoting about who gets judged and how and now you seek to turn it around to us being the judge.

Drop the crap Slick, and answer the question why don't you? Where do YOU think the dufus is going, heaven or you know that other place with the fire for criminals, liars, cheats, adulterers, and unbelieving heathens.

---

Why is he guilty before God but you are not? The two of you are in exactly in the same boat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You are confusing the exclusivity of the Christian faith with being hateful. They are not the same.



Why is he guilty before God but you are not? The two of you are in exactly in the same boat.

---

I can go with ALL humans in the same boat and overlook the reluctance to answer according to your scripture therefore effectively dodging the question, but that confusing the exclusivity of the Christian faith with being hateful is a bunch of malarkey. If you don't know say so, if you cannot explain, or express say so, but don't insult me with double talk!

PS

You are in the boat with us right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You are confusing the exclusivity of the Christian faith with being hateful. They are not the same.

---

The Christian faith is exclusive? If one isn't Christian (hmmm, wonder what kind and how much), one is headed for everlasting hellfire?

Quote:

---

Why is he guilty before God but you are not? The two of you are in exactly in the same boat.

---

We're talking about Trump, and no one else. His daily misbehavior is suspect.

Quote:

---

I can go with ALL humans in the same boat and overlook the reluctance to answer according to your scripture therefore effectively dodging the question, but that confusing the exclusivity of the Christian faith with being hateful is a bunch of malarkey. If you don't know say so, if you cannot explain, or express say so, but don't insult me with double talk!

---

There is no insult intended. We are all guilty before God which makes the question about Trump silly. Only in Christ is there forgiveness. That's what makes the Christian faith exclusive. Jesus said that no one comes to the Father but through Him. That's as exclusive as you can get. Either that, or Jesus was completely mistaken.

So tell me, Tal. Are you guilty? If Trump is to face judgement, then aren't you as well? That's not asked in a finger pointing way. Just an exercise in thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You are getting confused. Saying unbelievers go to hell is not the same thing as saying that is WHY they go to hell. They do not go because of unbelief. They go because of breaking the laws of God. If you would take the time to read carefully, you would see that I stated that very thing above.

---

I'm not a bit confused. For months you have been supporting "unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment". Then in your last post, you walked it back a bit by the sophistry of introducing "WHY' into the equation. Then you changed it all by now saying "They go because of breaking the laws of God". You charge me with not being to read carefully. Yet you NEVER said that before. Your ethics, or lack thereof, get worse and worse.

To the new charge: read my lips, unbelief is NOT breaking the laws of God. Is God just waiting up there to swoop that old Chinese lady working the rice paddy to die so he can immediately cast her into the fires of your hell? Good grief, man, use your head. God gave you a brain for discernment. Start discerning.

Quote:

---

People perish because they have broken God's laws and are guilty before Him.

---

No they don't. People perish because of sickness, old age, accident and a myriad other ways. Didn't we already do this?

Quote:

---

Perhaps you thought I meant "perish" as in "die"?

---

Yes, that is the accepted, normal, common meaning of the word in English. If it means eternal punishment in hell, I'm sure the proper words would have been used.

Quote:

---

I blundered across this in 2 Thessalonians this morning. "when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with [f]His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be glorified [g]in His [h]saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed."

---

Wow, this threat is a beauty. "Eternal destruction" - you sure get riled up when you get tied up in discussion. What would you guys do without threats? Probably gain a few more converts. But it's not really about converts, is it?

Quote:

---

gospel according to Matthew but there's no evidence he actually wrote it." That statement is not even close to being accurate.

---

It's perfectly accurate. Check with your Bible scholar pals.

Quote:

---

As to the date of Matthew, the third century only applies if you are looking for complete manuscripts. Papayrus P104 is a small fragment of Matthew dated to the second century.

---

That's precisely, almost word for word, what I said!

Quote:

---

And if you are going to apply your standard of reliability to all of ancient writings

---

No, just to Matthew.

Quote:

---

then you can't depend on any of it. The textual evidence for the NT is fantastically greater than that of other ancient texts. Nothing else even comes close. The textual evidence for the accurate copying of the NT is also tremendous.

---

I've heard this argument before. It's irrelevant - other ancient writings have nothing to do with the NT - and it usually emerges as a last attempt to salvage an argument re Biblical accuracy.

My disagreement is with JL's erstwhile belief that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. If he wishes to change "unbelievers" to breakers of God's law, I think he has a perfect right to do that and I would not dispute his belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

There is no insult intended. We are all guilty before God which makes the question about Trump silly. Only in Christ is there forgiveness. That's what makes the Christian faith exclusive. Jesus said that no one comes to the Father but through Him. That's as exclusive as you can get. Either that, or Jesus was completely mistaken.

So tell me, Tal. Are you guilty? If Trump is to face judgement, then aren't you as well? That's not asked in a finger pointing way. Just an exercise in thinking.

---

I will let God handle his business the way he sees fit, I have no control over that, and I suggest you do the same. I'm comfortable letting MAN'S law deal with the dufus. It's amusing watching his sycophants twist themselves in knots defending him, as more is revealed daily, and tomorrow starts the public hearings for those that haven't been keeping up.

I don't question God, just the humans. They are flawed and can screw up anything and that's what I am guilty of, being a flawed human.

Quote:

---

That's precisely, almost word for word, what I said!

---

Nope. You never mentioned the second century document. Not true.

Quote:

---

It's perfectly accurate. Check with your Bible scholar pals.

---

I'll let you argue that one with Irenaeus. Is he enough of a scholar for you???

Quote:

---

And if you are going to apply your standard of reliability to all of ancient writings
No, just to Matthew.

---

Intellectual lunacy.

Quote:

---

then you can't depend on any of it. The textual evidence for the NT is fantastically greater than that of other ancient texts. Nothing else even comes close. The textual evidence for the accurate copying of the NT is also tremendous.
I've heard this argument before. It's irrelevant - other ancient writings have nothing to do with the NT - and it usually emerges as a last attempt to salvage an argument re Biblical accuracy.

---

It's irrelevant only to you. People who actually know what they are talking about value that argument highly and see the consistency in it. A person would have to be absolutely blind to question the NT over a 100 year gap and accept Plato despite a 1300 year gap. It would be sheer stupidity.

Quote:

---

My disagreement is with JL's erstwhile belief that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. If he wishes to change "unbelievers" to breakers of God's law, I think he has a perfect right to do that and I would not dispute his belief.

---

It's all very simple. You are basically putting words in my mouth and then trying to hold me responsible for what you said. It's a paper thin strategy that an eighth grader can see through. Again, I have never said that unbelief sends people to hell. And the quote I gave that you went apoplectic about is from the Bible, so your argument is with the Bible, not with me. That has been the case for months. Now you have elected to reject the Bible. That's your choice. If the Bible is accurate, then you will someday live to bitterly regret that decision.

Just give it up, Athos. You were wrong about Aquinas. Somewhat right about the earliest manuscript of Matthew. Wrong about the authorship of Matthew. Wrong about my views on who goes to hell. Wrong about the significance of the NT time gap. Wrong about the use of "perish" in John 3:16. You have arguments that cannot be supported. Give it up.

Quote:

---

I'm comfortable letting MAN'S law deal with the dufus.

---

Tal, you are the one who brought up the question about Trump going to hell, not me.

Quote:

---

Tal, you are the one who brought up the question about Trump going to hell, not me.

---

So what? You quoted your scripture and I expressed my opinion. I suppose you did your best. It is what it is.

Quote:

---

So what? You quoted your scripture and I expressed my opinion. I suppose you did your best. It is what it is.

---

Fair enough. I'm ready to move on to something else anyway. This horse has been ridden to death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Nope. You never mentioned the second century document. Not true.

I'll let you argue that one with Irenaeus. Is he enough of a scholar for you???

---

I said the small fragments were EARLIER than the 3rd century. I think Irenaeus is wrong. Why would Matthew, an eye witness, copy Mark's Gospel, an anonymous author?

Quote:

---

Intellectual lunacy.

---

Now THERE'S a reasoned argument. A bit of projection, there.

Quote:

---

It's irrelevant only to you...... It would be sheer stupidity.

---

Your failure in logic rears its ugly head - AGAIN! You really ought to think before you write.

Quote:

---

You are basically putting words in my mouth

---

Are you now denying that "unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment"? That's fine with me, but why didn't you say that months ago instead of cherry-picking all those Bible verses is support of that proposition?

Quote:

---

I have never said that unbelief sends people to hell.

---

YOU know that is exactly what you supported. I know it is. OTHERS here know it. Problem is, you can't get away from what is archived under your name. You should have thought of that.

Quote:

---

your argument is with the Bible, not with me.

---

So you DO acknowledge the Bible verses supporting unbelievers go to hell. I think you're wrong. My argument is with YOU!

Quote:

---

Now you have elected to reject the Bible.

---

There you go again. When in doubt, make up stuff. You dearly want me to reject the Bible, then you can send me to hell.

Quote:

---

If the Bible is accurate, then you will someday live to bitterly regret that decision.

---

Ah, I was waiting for the threat. You are certainly consistent.

Quote:

---

You have arguments that cannot be supported. Give it up.

---

And here I thought you might have changed. Now you're back to square one.

Quote:

---

Are you now denying that "unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment"? That's fine with me, but why didn't you say that months ago instead of cherry-picking all those Bible verses is support of that proposition?

---

I can't explain it any better than I have done. I just don't know what to say. It's amazing. I could explain this to any competent sixth grader. There is a difference in saying "unbelievers will be judged" versus saying what they will be judged for. It is only slightly more complicated that saying 2+2=4. I suspect you are an intelligent person, so I can only assume you have determined NOT to understand such a simple concept.

As to the rest of your complaints, I can only say this. Your only position is that you don't like my position. You claimed Aquinas as your ally when he plainly said a person must believe in "the Faith", hardly supporting what I guess is your idea that unbelief is no big deal. You said there was no evidence for the authorship of Matthew. When I gave you Iraeneus (and there are others) you say, amazingly, that you don't agree with him. You can't seem to understand the meaning of "perish" as used in John 3:16 where it plainly cannot mean to die physically. You can't understand how ridiculous it is to not be able to understand why so many scholars believe a century gap in the NT manuscripts is so much less significant than the 1300 year gap for Plato's works. You are astonishingly unaware that most NT scholars believe that both Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source. You get irritated when I show you the 2 Thessalonians passage and act like I wrote it just to threaten you. You are evidently unaware that Matthew is extensively quoted in the second century and referred to as "scripture".

As to Irenaeus claiming Matthew copied Mark, which is plainly ridiculous since it would be the most obvious thing in the world to see, I don't know where that comes from. The passage I referred to is this. It says nothing to that effect, but perhaps you have another source. "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.3309 For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews3310 in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I can't explain it any better than I have done. I just don't know what to say. It's amazing. I could explain this to any competent sixth grader. There is a difference in saying "unbelievers will be judged" versus saying what they will be judged for. It is only slightly more complicated that saying 2+2=4.

---

What IS amazing is this weird excursion into the recesses of your mind. I will leave it to others here to determine who is right and who is not telling the truth re your belief of unbelievers and hell.

Quote:

---

Your only position is that you don't like my position.

---

Actually, that's true, except for the "only" part. I've spent months rebutting your position. I can do no more.

Quote:

---

...Aquinas...authorship of Matthew....Iraeneus.........."perish".........cent ury gap....NT manuscripts..........1300 year gap.....Plato......Luke and Matthew.............Mark as a source.....threaten you......... Matthew.......quoted second century........

---

Saving bandwidth, all your comments have previously been answered. Here's a sampling: "perish" means perish, you seem to think it means live forever in hell.

I'm not the only one to ever disagree with Irenaeus.

Almost every verse in Matthew is found in Mark which comes earlier. Etc. etc., etc. You even say yourself that "Most NT scholars believe Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source".

Quote:

---

..................................... Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

---

Your lengthy copy of a Bible passage has nothing to do with unbelievers going to hell for eternal punishment.

Quote:

---

Almost every verse in Matthew is found in Mark which comes earlier. Etc. etc., etc. You even say yourself that "Most NT scholars believe Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source".

---

First of all, Matthew is much longer than Mark, so "almost every verse" of Matthew could not possibly be found in Mark. Perhaps you meant it the other way around, but even then it would not be correct. Now much of Mark's content is in Matthew, but nothing approaching all of it. Much of Matthew's material is clearly original. And at any rate, the idea that Matthew used Mark as a source is strictly hypothetical.

Secondly, to say that Matthew used Mark as a source is far removed from saying he copied it. They are not even close to being the same thing. I have to believe you already know that.

Thirdly, if Matthew had simply copied Mark, then they would be identical. They are not in the ballpark of being identical. The same is true of Luke. It seems almost as if you have never read them. If you had, you would have known that instantly.

Quote:

---

Your lengthy copy of a Bible passage has nothing to do with unbelievers going to hell for eternal punishment.

---

That was not a Bible passage. Did you really think it was? It was a quote from Irenaeus. I am still just astonished that you would think you would know more about the authorship of Matthew than he did. It would be like saying you know more about the European theater of WW 2 than Patton did.

Now I do agree with this. " I will leave it to others here to determine who is right and who is not telling the truth re your belief of unbelievers and hell." I have no doubt that others can tell the clear and obvious difference.

Perhaps the day will come when you will give us your position on eternity and judgement.

I don't understand you, Athos, but I do wish you well. I do sincerely pray the day will come when you will see the Truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And at any rate, the idea that Matthew used Mark as a source is strictly hypothetical.

---

And then there's Q.

Completely hypothetical with no direct evidence for it in existence, or at least not that I'm aware of. But even if it existed, and maybe it did, it would make no difference. It would simply have been a source. I'm not sure what the significance, if any, would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Perhaps the day will come when you will give us your position on eternity and judgement.

---

Why?

It is YOUR position that is in question here. Another attempt at deflection?

Quote:

---

I don't understand you, Athos

---

Well, that's been obvious for a long time.

Quote:

---

I do sincerely pray the day will come when you will see the Truth.

---

As I, you.

Quote:

---

It is YOUR position that is in question here. Another attempt at deflection?

---

Remember Matthew 25? Now we have two areas where you are too fearful to take a stand.

I know. You're consulting scholars.

Jl responding to WG comment of "Q", German for Quelle, "source", which is thought to be the source from which Matthew and Mark were written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

But even if it existed, and maybe it did, it would make no difference. It would simply have been a source. I'm not sure what the significance, if any, would be.

---

The significance is that it's a strong indication Matthew is NOT the original author of the Gospel written in his name.

Quote:

---

The significance is that it's a strong indication Matthew is NOT the original author of the Gospel written in his name.

---

Counting you, there is now one person on the earth who believes that. Your comment is completely ridiculous and shows you don't know the slightest thing about Q.

Now who's deflecting? Take a stand. Have some backbone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Now we have two areas where you are too fearful to take a stand.

---

You didn't answer why.

Your tendency to avoid questions I pose - been going on since day one - does not help discover the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Counting you, there is now one person on the earth who believes that. Your comment is completely ridiculous and shows you don't know the slightest thing about Q.

---

Of course, Luke was meant. Not Mark. Don't have a heart attack when you stumble across a typo. As far as your claim that Matthew and Mark are not alike, how do you explain of Mark's 661 verses, 660 are found in Matthew.

Quote:

---

Now who's deflecting? Take a stand. Have some backbone.

---

You are the one doing the deflecting. I think you should calm down - you might rupture something.

Next you are going to tell us John was copied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Next you are going to tell us John was copied.

---

Sure. As soon as you answer my question WHY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Counting you, there is now one person on the earth who believes that. Your comment is completely ridiculous and shows you don't know the slightest thing about Q.

---

There are more than one who believe that. I took theology courses on M and Q and how the synoptic gospels came to be.

You are still too fearful to take a stand, Athos. Bear that in mind. Matthew 25 was weeks ago and still no answer.

As to Q, it is an attempt to explain the commonality of some parts of Matthew and Luke that are not common to Mark. Matthew has 1071 verses. 387 are in common with both Mark and Luke, 130 with Mark only, and 184 with Luke only. 387 verses are found only in Matthew. Much of Mark is in Matthew, but it is not copied verbatim and even a casual reading of the two books shows that. But even if it was, it would do nothing to show that Matthew was not the author of the Gospel bearing his name. To suggest that Q is thought to cast doubt on the authorship of Matthew is ludicrous. It does no such thing. And worse, there is not a shred of manuscript evidence for this Q document's existence anyway.

Irenaeus attributed Matthew to Matthew. Other early church leaders quoted freely from Matthew when it bore his name. Tatian, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, and Ignatius all treated the book as authentic. Your claim that there was "no evidence" to support the authorship of Matthew is just ridiculously false.

Quote:

---

As far as your claim that Matthew and Mark are not alike, how do you explain of Mark's 661 verses, 660 are found in Matthew.

---

Simple. It's not true. 606 might be true, but not 660.

Quote:

---

There are more than one who believe that.

---

Who? And I'd still like to know what you think about the words of Christ in Matthew 25. Hopefully you can provide something a little more substantial that this "answer".

Quote:

---

Why do you continue to hit me with this and wonder what I believe? I'm a preacher's kid, for years a Lutheran grade school teacher, a Sunday school teacher, and an adult Bible class teacher, a psychotherapist who is always ready to bring into the discussion Jesus' two greatest commandments.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Sure. As soon as you answer my question WHY.

---

WHY what? or just plain WHAT?

GERMANS wrote parts of the BIBLE? Never heard that before.