re: Checking in on the “keep prayer out of school” crowd

quote:

---

Jeez dude, you just keep exposing your ignorance.

---

Oh? Let’s see it.

quote:

---

The Apostle Matthew didnt write the book of Matthew. It was written anonymously by a Jew watching the story of Christ becoming dominated by Gentiles.

---

It seems as if you are building a straw man argument against nothing I’ve actually stated. I never stated I believe a real guy named “Mark” wrote the “Gospel of Mark”. What would expect anyone to call that piece of literature? “The gospel of the anonymous most-likely Greek-speaking Jew who wanted to rebuke Paul and redact the other gospel the church calls the gospel according to Mark”??? How about the “Gospel of Matthew” to make it easier on everyone to know which piece of literature is being discussed.

quote:

---

It was a simply a response to that movement by a Jew-centric man who borrowed HEAVILY from the first testament written: the book of Mark

---

Oh? So you allege I’m ignorant for stating “the gospel of Matthew” but you are a Rhodes Scholar referring to the other writing as the “book of Mark”. Hey genius, the gospel of Mark was also an anonymous writing. And “Matthew” didn’t borrow heavily from “Mark”, but rather he copied, edited, and redacted “Mark” with the likely intention to create a more accurate or better version in the author’s opinion.

quote:

---

And like I said its written to bring the religion back to its Jewish origins as seen in its very 1st passage: "The Book of Genealogy of Jesus Christ"

---

There are some on here who believed all the 4 canonical gospels are divinely inspired “god breathed” and are all 100% true. Anyone with half a brain though can see that the genealogies of Jesus in “Matthew” and “Luke” are very different - irreconcilably different. Which one, if either, would you argue is correct?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Sucks for you, referring to a story that wasn’t in the original gospel of John.

---

Well, thats a lie.

---

No, you are the liar, and a poor one at that. Anyone can do 5 minutes of their own research and they can see that the adulterous woman was added to “John” in the 5th century. There’s a shitload of earlier manuscripts of “John” that we have today that don’t contain that story.

quote:

---

The Gospel of the Hebrews contained the story, and it was written sometime between 100-120AD. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, who included in his writings the story of Jesus and the adulteress around 95AD.

---

That may or may not be true. But it wasn’t in the gospel “of John”. Why do you keep moving the goalposts? I stated it wasn’t in the gospel of “John” and never said the story never existed in some other document.

quote:

---

Youre incapable of understanding what you read. We are to follow the law. His death fulfilled the law. We are now saved by faith, grace. No longer by works. And therefore we are not to judge, by stoning or throwing people off the roof.

---

You are assuming univocality and erroneously interpreting “Matthew” through the lens of the rest of the scriptures. “Matthew” was rebuking Pauline Christianity which by the time “Matthew” was written had been preaching against Christians having to follow the Torah. “Matthew” wrote that passage to counter that Pauline view that the Torah didn’t have to be followed.