Homework for what? Don't use a word like that...use RESEARCH instead. And oh by the by, I've done my research: From gotquestions.com:
"Suggested dates for the writing of the Gospel of Matthew range from as early as 40 A.D. to as late as 140 A.D. This wide range of dates from scholars indicates the subjective nature of the dating process. Generally, one will find that the presuppositions of the scholars greatly influence their dating of the gospel.
For example, in the past many liberal theologians have argued for a later dating of many of the New Testament books than is probably warranted or valid, in an attempt to discredit or cast doubts upon the content and authenticity of the Gospel accounts. On the other hand, there are many scholars that look to a much earlier dating of the New Testament books. There are some that believe there is good evidence to support the view that the whole New Testament, including Revelation, was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. It is our contention that the evidence supports the earlier dating more than it does the later dating.
There are scholars who believe that Matthew was written as early as ten to twelve years after the death of Christ. Those that hold to this earlier dating of Matthew believe that he first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic and then it was later translated into Greek. One of the evidences of this earlier dating of Matthew’s Gospel is the fact that early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius recorded that Matthew first wrote his gospel for Jewish believers while he was still in Palestine. In fact Eusebius, (a bishop of Caesarea and known as the father of church history), reported that Matthew wrote his gospel before he left Palestine to preach in other lands, which Eusebius says happened about 12 years after the death of Christ. Some scholars believe that this would place the writing of Matthew as early as 40-45 A.D. and as late as 55 A.D.
Even if the Gospels were not written until 30 years after Christ’s death, that would still place the writing of them prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. This presents no major problem with their authority or accuracy. Passing on oral traditions and teachings was common place in the Jewish culture of that day, and memorization was highly cultivated and practiced. Also, the fact that even at that time there would have been a considerable number of eyewitnesses around to dispute and discredit any false claims, and the fact that none of the “hard sayings” of Jesus were taken from the gospel accounts, further supports the accuracy of them. Had the Gospels been edited before being written down, as some liberal scholars contend, then it was a very poor job. The writers left far too many “hard sayings,” and culturally unacceptable / politically incorrect accounts that would need explaining. An example of this is that the first witnesses of the resurrection were women, whose testimony held no value as a witness in the culture of that day."
BTW I WAS wrong about something, it was the Council of Carthage that tried to prove the diety of Jesus, so I'll give you that one, Alak.
But read this, from the same site, about the Gnostic Gospels (the fake ones)
"So, what are we to make of the Gnostic gospels? Should some or all of them be in the Bible? No, they should not. First, as we pointed out above, the Gnostic gospels are forgeries. The Gnostic gospels were fraudulently written in the names of the apostles in order to give them a legitimacy in the early church. Thankfully, the early church fathers were nearly unanimous in recognizing the Gnostic gospels as promoting false teachings about virtually every key Christian doctrine. There are countless contradictions between the Gnostic gospels and the true Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Gnostic gospels can be a good source to study early Christian heresies, but they should be rejected outright as not belonging in the Bible and not representing the genuine Christian faith."
Btw on the Satan thing, the rest of it is an idea held and accepted by [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of Christians, but it is a strange idea to think that Satan rules the place he is supposed to be punished in.
And on the note of the eye witness accounts, they were recorded by the early church. I forgot to say that and I apologize. Alak I dont mean to attack you or anything, but since we are debating, you obviously need to read up on this stuff. You were wrong about the "extrabiblical" Roman law. You were wrong about taking the body off the cross...and you obviously didn't have anything better to say than "Do Your Homework" which shows that you probably dont know what happened. I dont either, I wasn't there, but I get my information from scholars...
Edited by TheAvengerButton, 14 June 2006 - 12:29 AM.
