Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mark9950 · 06-22-2003, 03:09 PM

Since king herod was a real king,and the account of herod killing the first born of many families to try to kill jesus was a myth.

What credibility does the book or author of matthew have?

Vinnie · 06-22-2003, 03:30 PM

The infancy narrative traditions differ from the rest of the material. I am not saying the rest is accurate but that the material needs to be distinguished. Matthews credibility level, overall, isn't very high on my side of the scale though.

That is of course if you mean "credibility level" to be "factual historical biography". Matthew is not the latter. Its primarily a faith document containing amounts of genuine history, lots of skewed history and downright fiction.

Vinnie

EstherRose · 06-22-2003, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mark9950
the account of herod killing the first born of many families to try to kill jesus was a myth.

May I ask where you got that information? I would like to see it for myself.

keyser_soze · 06-23-2003, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by EstherRose
May I ask where you got that information? I would like to see it for myself.

I think he's referring to the LACK of information to support such an event. Vinnie could easily set your mind at ease on this very topic. There is no support for the event, period.

EstherRose · 06-23-2003, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mark9950
Since king herod was a real king,and the account of herod killing the first born of many families to try to kill jesus was a myth.

Oh. Since he stated it so authoritatively, I just assumed he had some proof that it was a myth instead of just a personal belief that it was a myth.

mark9950 · 06-24-2003, 02:28 AM

I posted the question in one of my previous topics on this board.

Also for your interest go to this website.

http://web2.iadfw.net/capella/aguide/

and click on AOMatthew/Problems.

you will see descrepencies and anomolies in the book of matthew.

Calzaer · 06-24-2003, 09:49 AM

Because, of course, no evidence whatsoever for an event is in and of itself conclusive evidence of the event taking place. It's always OUR problem to DISPROVE the ludicrious claims made in the buy-bull, it's never their job to actually support anything they believe in with facts. What kind of heretic are you, Mark?

Kosh · 06-24-2003, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by EstherRose
Oh. Since he stated it so authoritatively, I just assumed he had some proof that it was a myth instead of just a personal belief that it was a myth.

Hi Esther,

so are you saying that a person should not state
their personal beliefs authoritatively unless they
have verifiable proof?

EstherRose · 06-24-2003, 05:24 PM

A poor attempt at humor on my part. Since many unbelievers I encounter here and elsewhere say that to me, I just stated it here once I found out that mark9950 didn't have any proof that Herod didn't kill children.

Calzaer · 06-24-2003, 05:33 PM

We have no proof that YOU haven't killed children, either.

06-22-2003, 03:09 PM	#1
mark9950 Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: midwest usa Posts: 1,203	The credibility of Matthew Since king herod was a real king,and the account of herod killing the first born of many families to try to kill jesus was a myth. What credibility does the book or author of matthew have?

06-24-2003, 02:28 AM	#6
mark9950 Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: midwest usa Posts: 1,203	Esther rose I posted the question in one of my previous topics on this board. Also for your interest go to this website. http://web2.iadfw.net/capella/aguide/ and click on AOMatthew/Problems. you will see descrepencies and anomolies in the book of matthew.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-22-2003, 03:30 PM	#2
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	The infancy narrative traditions differ from the rest of the material. I am not saying the rest is accurate but that the material needs to be distinguished. Matthews credibility level, overall, isn't very high on my side of the scale though. That is of course if you mean "credibility level" to be "factual historical biography". Matthew is not the latter. Its primarily a faith document containing amounts of genuine history, lots of skewed history and downright fiction. Vinnie

06-24-2003, 09:49 AM	#7
Calzaer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,762	Because, of course, no evidence whatsoever for an event is in and of itself conclusive evidence of the event taking place. It's always OUR problem to DISPROVE the ludicrious claims made in the buy-bull, it's never their job to actually support anything they believe in with facts. What kind of heretic are you, Mark?

06-24-2003, 05:24 PM	#9
EstherRose Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Arizona Posts: 183	A poor attempt at humor on my part. Since many unbelievers I encounter here and elsewhere say that to me, I just stated it here once I found out that mark9950 didn't have any proof that Herod didn't kill children.

06-24-2003, 05:33 PM	#10
Calzaer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,762	We have no proof that YOU haven't killed children, either.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.