Matthew 24 Part 1 Prophecy of the temple

“Prophecy of Matthew”

Wrong, it’s not the “Prophecy OF Matthew”, its a prohecy from the anonymous text labled Matthew. They have no idea who wrote it, it is unsigned. Same with Mark Luke and John, all 4 gospels in the bible are by anonymous authors.

It is thought by quite a few theologens they are more likely to be about the older Mithrasism religion, seeing as the story is near identical. None of the other 30 or so gospels that didn’t make into the bibe are anonymous, all the rest are authored.

They are not the only documents in the NT to be known forgeries, Timothy and Revelation amongst them. As such the bible amounts to so much dung. Of which should be piled up and allowed to decompose in dignity.

Definitions and research again Pix; your getting pathetic in your vain attempts to discredit anything concerning Christianity.

1) The Gospels and Acts are quoted as genuine by ancient writers, beginning with writers contemporaneous with the apostles themselves and continuing thereafter. This sort of proof is the strongest argument for the authenticity of a writing and is regularly used by ordinary historians to prove that a particular work came from a certain author. This method when applied to the Gospels and Acts, establishes without question their authenticity. For example, the Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 120 A.D.) quotes Matthew as Scripture, and Clement of Rome (ca. 90 A.D.) also quotes words found in Matthew. The Shephard of Hermas alludes to Matthew, Luke, and John. Ignatius, who was a church leader in Antioch about 37 years after Christ’s death (i.e. 70 – 110 A.D.), alludes to Matthew and John. His contemporary Polycarp, who knew personally the disciple John and other eywitnesses to Jesus’ ministry, refers to different New Testament works some fourty times. Papias, who also knew John, specifically says Matthew and Mark wrote their Gospels; the offhand way in which he makes this remark shows that it was a fact generally known. Justin Martyr about twenty years later frequently quotes the Gospels. Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp, specifically names the four Gospel writers.

2) The books of the New Testament are always quoted as authoritative and as one of a kind. The ancient writers did not quote these books as they would quote any ordinary piece of literature. These books were special and possessed final authority concerning what they said. Paley provides quoteations from Theophilus, the writer against Artemon, Hippolytus, Origin (230 A.D.), and many others to prove the point.

3) The books of the New Testament were collected together into one volume at a very early date. Today we divide the NT into the Gospels and the Epistles. The ancient writers made a similar distinction, only they called it the Gospels and the Apostels. Ignatius mentions collections of NT books into the Gospels and the Apostles. According to Eusebius, Quadratus distributed the Gospels to converts during his travels. Irenaeus and Melito refer to the collection of writing which we today call the NT. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian (both about 190-200 A.D.) also refer to the division of Scripture into the Gospels and the Apostles. This shwos that the Gospels and Epistles were collected together as the NT at an early date.

4) These writings were given titles of respect. Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Dionysius, Irenaeus, and others refer to them as “scriptures”, “divine writings”, and so forth.

5) They were publically read and preached upon. Paley quotes Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian to prove the point.

6) Copies, commentaries, harmonies of the Gospels were written. Thousands upon thousands of copies of the NT books are laboriously made by hand. Many commentaries and other works on them were written by men such as Panaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and so on. It is especially noteworthy that during the first three centuries no commentary was written on any book outside the NT, with the sole exception of Clement’s commentary on the so-called Revelation of Peter. Harmonies, or combinations of the four Gospels into one, were also composed; for example, Tatian’s Diatessaron (A.D. 170).

7) Moreover, the NT books were accepted by all heretical groups as well as by orthodox Christians. Examples of such heretics include Basilides, the Valentinians, the Carpocratians, and many others. Though they all denied some aspect of the NT teaching, they nevertheless acknowledged the authenticity of the NT books themselves.

8) The Gospels, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, 1 John and 1 Peter were recognized as authentic writings even by those who doubted the authenticity of certain other NT Epistles. E.g., Origen cites the book of Hebrews to support a particular point he is making. He notes that some persons might doubt the authority of Hebrews, but he says that the same point could be proved from the undisputed books of Scripture. He then quotes Matthew and Acts. According to Origen, the four Gospels were received without doubt by the whole church of God under heaven. In the same way Eusebius reports that while some doubted certain Epistles, the four Gospels were unniversally recognized as authentic.

9) The early enemies of Christianity recognized that the Gospels contained the story on which the faith was founded. Celsus, for example, admits that the Gospels were written by the apostles. Porphyry attacked the Christian faith as it is found in the Gospels. The heretic Julian pursued the same procedure.

10) Lists of authentic Scriptures were published, which always included the Gospels and Acts. Citations from Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, and others go to prove the point.

11) The Apocryphal books were never treated in the above manner. The apocryphal books were forgeries which were written in the second century after Christ. They purported to be writings of the apostles and carried titles like the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, and so forth. It is a simple historical fact that during the first three hundred years, with one exception, no apocryphal Gospel was ever even quoted by any known writer. In fact, there is no evidence that any forged Gospel whatever existed in the first century, when the four Gospels and Acts were written. The apocryphal Gospels were never quoted, never read or preached upon in Christian assemblies, not collected into a volume, not included in the lists of authentic Scriptures, not appealed to by the heretics, not noticed by Christianities enemies, not the subject of commentaries or harmonies. They were almost universally rejected by Christian writers of that age.