If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real.

No, it's a fact.

Provide evidence that Christian doctrine relies heavily on the Old Testament.

So far you've not shown any knowledge of Christianity. You've repeatedly talked
about the Old Testament and have provided nothing about it being an important
part of the doctrine.

 

And fulfilled the law with his death and resurrection. Jesus made the
Jewish leaders angry because he taught contrary to their teachings.

 

To which link do you refer ?

 

After all of this you don't know what this discussion is about? I described it
above. Advent or something like that.

 

The link is the "Catholic Encyclopedia".
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

This link does not claim that Matthew was written by a disciple of Jesus by the name of Matthew. The authors would desperately like to say this, but they can not do so and have any claim to scholarly objectivity.

Even during the post Apostolic times we do not know whether or not these folks were quoting from oral tradition or from a written Gospel.

We do not know who the author of Matthew was. There "might" have been some Hebrew writings from the original disciple but these are lost to us and we do not know whether these were the same writings as that which appeared in later Greek.

There might have been some writings from Matt but these were thought to have been written in Hebrew and are lost to us. The stuff the later folks quote from was in Greek and we do not know who wrote that text.

In other words whomever wrote these gospels was using the same source material as the others or the others as source material. Modern scholarship generally claims that Mark came first and the others were written after using Mark as a source document.

Some of the evidence for this conclusion is given in the link.

Mark is found almost complete in Matt and the order is generally the same.

As a religion evolves dogma develops. In order to make scripture conform better to the dogma that had developed the author of Matthew omits things which do not quite jive with the dogma he wants to portray.

^ Holman Concise Bible Commentary ed. David S. Dockery -2011 p402 "Strictly speaking, the Gospel of Matthew is anonymous. The titles of the Gospels were not added until the 2nd century.

The Gospel of Matthew did not even have the title "Matthew until the second century.

So contrary to your claims, even the Catholic Encyclopedia does not claim that we know who the author of Matthew is. Sure there is some supposition that some of it might have come from Matt ... but we just do not know.

We do not have an eyewitness account.

If you go to more objective sources ... those that do not have an obviously pro church dogma bias .. believe me things get even worse.

This is the best you are going to get, the best case the Church can make and even they do not make such a claim as you have.

 

Yes, and it says the Book of Matthew was Apostolic. That means it was
written by an apostle. An apostle learned directly from Jesus. Ergo,
Matthew, an apostle, wrote the Gospel. Why do you refuse to acknowledge
that fact?

Deal with it. Matthew was an apostle, ergo an eye witness.

You finally provided the link which shows you to be wrong. I hope you
get the gist. From the majority of your post you don't. You don't even
agree with the posts you've provided.

LOL would be very inappropriate at this time but you provide no
recourse to the contrary. LOL fits.

By the way, the way you claim sources to be not pro church is very
dogmatic.

I realize that you don't understand Christianity. Your posts acknowledge that
fact. You're certainly bent on disagreeing regardless of the fact's presented.

 

So if Jesus fulfilled the law it's now OK to have idols and to boil a young goat in its mother's milk.
(The Second and Tenth Commandments, Exodus chapter 34).

 

its upon the way how we look evolution as a change or just making other terms false

 

No. Please read the New Testament.

They aren't part of the 10 commandments. Are you serious? Your
post clearly states that you are clueless and shouldn't be commenting
on this thread.

Yes, cheeseburgers are perfectly fine. Christians aren't under the
law. Is that too hard for you to understand? Seriously. What part of
that do you not understand. I can clarify any question you have.

 

JL, what are you trying to say? Maybe you were typing too fast,

Maybe you missed some punctuation.

 

When will you get up to speed on the real Ten Commandments? Right now you are at zero.

Get a pen and paper. Open up your Bible at Exodus chapter 19 and start reading. Take notes in your own words to summarize what you have read. Do this for each chapter from Exodus 19 through Exodus 34. When you get to Exodus 31:18 you will read that Moses got the two tablets of stone, written with the finger of God. In chapter 32 you will read how Moses went down from the mountain with the two stone tablets and how Moses threw them to the ground and broke them.

In chapter 34 you will read how God told Moses to chip out new stone tablets and write down the damn Commandments himself. When you get to verse 11 you will see that God starts dictating the Commandments to Moses through verse 27. In verse 28 you will read that what Moses wrote was the Ten Commandments.

If you are unwilling to do that just say so but if you claim that the real Ten Commandments are not in Exodus 34:11-26 you are just being willfully obdurate.

Exodus 34:28 (KJV) = "28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."

 

ROFL No it doesn't. What a joke. The Catholic Encyclopedia spends a number of pages trying to explain why they think is a link to Matthew.

No defacto claims are made and they go to great lengths not to say specifically that Matthew was written by the apostle as they do not want to be laughed out of the room like you are.

 

The prune is hilarious. He spends most of his time claiming "you do not understand the Bible" when it is clear that he has no clue himself.

 

Not true, you are at zero. Those aren't the 10 Commandments. Do some
research.

 

Okay, great. I'll take your word for it.

The fact remains that Matthew, a apostle of Jesus Christ,
wrote
the Gospel of Matthew

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/dictionaries/dict_meaning.php?source=1&wid=T0002443

 

I can understand why you deny them since they are so ethnocentric and bigoted. Even so Moses is going to be ticked off that you don't approve of his hard work chipping out the stone tablets over forty days and nights without eating or drinking anything.

Exodus 34:28 (KJV) = "28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."

 

No, you really don't understand. These are different from original 10 Commandments.
They are a totally other set. I have no idea why you believe these are the 10
Commandments since they are different from the first. Maybe you're stuck
on 10. I don't know.

Come to think of it, you're the only person I've ever encountered who thinks
these are the 10 Commandments.

 

I recant. I couldn't take your word for it.

Here's what the New Advent says, from the url you provided. St. Matthew, is
the apostle of Jesus.

The question of authenticity assumes an altogether special aspect in regard to the
First Gospel. The early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in
Hebrew; this Hebrew Gospel has, however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel
which we have, and from which ecclesiastical writers borrow quotations as coming
from the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek. What connection is there between this
Hebrew Gospel and this Greek Gospel, both of which tradition ascribes to St.
Matthew?

 

It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on

the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

 

Dude, it says that they are the Ten Commandments! When you read the story you can see that they are the Ten Commandments because those are the ones that Moses wrote on the stone tablets. The ones in Exodus chapter 20 were never written on the sone tablets. As I've pointed out, I can understand why you would reject the ethnocentric bigoted Ten Commandments in Exodus 34 even though it plainly says that they are the real Ten Commandments.

 

Tradition claims that the trinity exists but the word does not exist in the Bible and nor did the early church fathers believe in the doctrine.

Saying " Early writers thought St Matt wrote a gospel in Hebrew" does not mean St Matt wrote the Gospel of Matt in the Bible. We do not know what these early writings in Hebrew were or if they existed at all.

What part of "This Hebrew Gospel has "entirely disappeared" do you not understand.

The Greek Gospel of Matt was not even given the name "Matt" until the second century.

We do not know who wrote it and nor does the Catholic Encyclopedia claim that we do. We know that early Christian writers quoted from this Greek document which was not named Matt at the time. None of these early writers prior to the second century say " This quote is from Matt".

The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to say that we do not know whether these post-Apostolic writers were quoting from a written document or from oral tradition.

I do not know whether it is your reading comprehension or just wishful thinking but the Catholic Encyclopedia does not claim that the book of Matt in our modern Bible was written by St. Matt.

 

Then list them from Exodus 34.

Not true. They were written on stone. Exodus 24:12. You obviously haven't
read the account in fact I'm positive that you have no idea what you're saying and
are parroting something from a crack pot site. Where are getting your misinformed
information? Certainly not from the Bible. You've shown that from the beginning.

You've pointed out nothing except your lack of knowledge of the Bible and
especially the 10 Commandments. Who's telling you this stuff you're putting
up? Seriously.

 

Right, trinity doesn't appear in the Bible but it's mentioned as Father, Son and
Holy Ghost. The early church fathers certainly did believe that doctrine
since it's a biblical teaching.

You're cherry picking. The article definitely says that SAINT Matthew wrote
the Gospel. I even quoted it for you. What do you not understand?

Correction, what part of St. Matthew, the apostle who walked with Jesus, may have
wrote a Hebrew Gospel do you not understand? Seriously?

Irrelevant

Apparently you didn't read the source I provided or you're ignoring it. The Catholic Encyclopedia
isn't the only source out there.

 

If you read the fairy tale you will see that the list of items in Exodus chapter 20 came long before Moses going up to the mountain in Exodus 24:12. The basic Ten Commandments are found in Exodus chapter 23, scattered among the verbiage. But the Ten Commandments that were written on the stone tablets are the ones in Exodus chapter 34. The list of laws in Exodus 20 were not written on stone tablets.

BTW, the first time anything is referred to as the Ten Commandments is in Exodus 34:28. That refers to the verbiage in Exodus 34:11-26. That verbiage is not the best, which indicates that another writer wrote it instead of the one that wrote the other passages.

Be careful how you cook your goat.

 

There is no fairy tale, except in your thinking of what the 10 Commandments are.

The 10 Commandments are in Exodus 20.

I can't help but notice that you can't list the so-called 10 commandments in
Exodus 34 or where you get your misguided interpretation from

You need to give up your wishful thinking because you are dead wrong. Period.

Have you ever wondered why your make believe commandments aren't quoted on
Court House lawns, schools and other reasonable places?