Who Wrote The Gospel Attributed to Matthew?

[JWO]

Mary's blood line to David.



Both are accurate. The Luke 24 account is a telescoped version as he was concluding the gospel account. Luke chapter "25" starts at Acts 1.

I'm sure you already know the difference of the Indwelling Holy Spirit and being clothed from on High.

When I was a Dispensationalist, I heard those things, and I read the Theology that went behind it.

I got over it. I no longer think that the God who can't stand being around sinning flesh wants to take up residence in it. You're not one of those Imputed Righteousness Cult people are you? 'cause Jesus says they're buiding on sand.

Oh... and anyone who thinks same-day ascension-and-return is equal to 40-days-later must be using what the kids used to call new math.

 

[JWO]

You should revisit the post 1st Century AD church history.

Anyone who spends any time at all on the web will find answers proving any theory at all from any and all viewpoints. It seems like I'm being laughed at by someone who thinks same-day and 40-days equality can be had for the price of a telescope.

The New Testament's bits and pieces which were scattered everywhere, were Greek. Greek was the language written from India to England in those days. A large part of the reason the Septuagint came to be. And Septuagint is the version Jesus quoted.

The rest of this thread has to do with the character of those bits and pieces. Fact is, ma'am, you're attempting to deflect a very real problem using shells and peas. It matters who said what about Jesus. Jesus says that they used to belong to the Father, and the Father gave them to Him. That meant that they were already following God. We don't know that about Luke or Mark... and the opposite is true about Shaul. He tells you that he made the followers of Jesus blaspheme. And if you believe what Shaul says about Jesus, then he's still doing that today.

If you are at all interested in the OP itself, you might try finding the book I quoted, by Roberts. Off-hand pot-shots have little likelihood of hitting a target which has yet to be seen. All that can be expected to happen to you, through this thread, is that you bore the messenger, win the approval of your peers, and rest on that sandy beach, where never the words of Jesus can spoil what you want to believe about God.

 

[SteveCaruso]

Jesus spoke a few words in Aramaic, at those times when that language was necessary. The rest of the time, Jesus is found quoting from the Greek OT.

Don't let cross glosses confuse you. The Greek NT quotes the Septuagint, the Hebrew translations the Hebrew, Vulgate the Latin, etc. It was common practice not to directly translate quotes from established works, but pull from established translations of those works.

In truth, Jesus probably spoke very little Greek, and his own words in the Greek NT often betray themselves to being from an Aramaic under-layer due to puns and wordplay that the Greek completely misses. This even happens occasionally in the narrative (Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and Luke's Sermon on the Plain, for example, likely come from an ambiguous Galilean word that means both -- and a number of the teachings demonstrate this too).

 

[redleghunter]

John says Peter was the first apostle that Jesus chose to travel with Him in order to learn what Jesus believed.

No John did not. Andrew was the first identified to follow Jesus Christ according to John (and one other who was not Peter). Clearly seen here: John 1:35-42

But John DOESN'T say that Shaul was, and neither does the writer of Matthew. Mark doesn't even say Shaul was, and Mark travelled with Shaul in Rome, remember? Ditto, for Luke.

Ok, you do realized Paul was called by Christ after Christ rose from the dead Bodily glorified and ascended? However, we have ample evidence Paul and Barnabas were received by the church of Jerusalem with great joy and the church of Jerusalem ruled in their (Paul and Barnabas) favor that "we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they [Gentiles].” (more here: Acts 15:3-21). [bracketed my emphasis on the modified subject]

James was chosen by the Apostles to be leader of the church in Jerusalem, and James speaks unfailingly against Shaul's teachings... point blank. Which makes me look askance at Acts, in and of itself.

Well you have some consistency issues above.

First, you end the above quote saying "which makes me look askance at Acts" yet use Acts to establish James as the leader of the church of Jerusalem. You can't have your cake and eat it. Either Acts is authoritative and we take the words to be true, or we don't. You seem to 'nuke' Luke, his gospel account and Acts which Luke is attributed to. Yet, use Luke's work to establish James as the leader of the church of Jerusalem. So what is it? Is Acts authoritative throughout or only where it fits your theology?

Second, you have the wrong James as author of the Epistle of James. It was James the brother of Jesus who was the head of the church at Jerusalem. James the apostle died ca. 44 AD (Acts 12) well before the Council of Jerusalem. Given your model of 'original apostles have higher authority' the James you quote was not even a disciple of Jesus Christ during Christ's ministry on earth. We are told by John Jesus' brothers (James being one but later became after the death and resurrection of Jesus) were not believers as seen here John 7:3-5.

I'll ask again...What does your canon look like? So far you have used NT sources you question in other posts. Or is that the point? Keep us guessing.

Strong disagreements. I guess they should redo those Carbon 14 datings.

Not following. Those range of dates by scholars are very tight when you consider scholarship. Or did I miss your point was you think carbon 14 dating was solely used to determine date range? Ultimately, those manuscripts which were scientifically tested for dating have a date range of 50-100 years as we would expect. Add to that the internal and external evidence of the artifacts themselves and Voila you have a date range given in the link I provided.

 

[redleghunter]

Now, you asked if anyone had witnessed my conversion. But, your case against me is misdirection, since I'm not the one who asked to be seen as a leader and a witness to something new. What I know is nothing other than what Jesus says.

Not a misdirection at all. You questioned the conversion of Paul because there were not 2 or 3 witnesses present. I asked if you had witnesses at your conversion because it would be something you could relate to. Therefore, I see your answer is 'no' no one was there other than you and the Lord at your conversion. Seems to be the case for everyone else....but Paul (according to you).

But if I were attempting to pass myself off as a prophet, I would expect to be questioned at length about my conversion. In fact, I'd be shocked if they never asked to see my resume at all, but just accepted me for what I'd said of myself. And if I'd and fulfilled Matthew 23:34, as Shaul did... I would never even expect to be taken seriously... much less would I try to live among AND EVEN PRESUME TO TEACH the people I'd been trying to exterminate.

As I already wrote in a previous post, the Jerusalem Council ruled in favor of the ministry and missionary work of Paul and Barnabas. The 'the sect of the Pharisees' lost. See Acts 15.

 

[redleghunter]

Exactly my point... walking with Jesus makes someone worthy of the name Apostle. If all Shaul ever heard was hear-say, and apparently even that was from Luke... which makes the waxed string between the tomato-soup cans even longer... and Luke chose the sources and even picked among them for what he wanted to report... then what makes Shaul a fit candidate, by Jesus' own rules?

We were speaking of Matthew. Why won't you answer the questions about why Matthew 'can't' be the author of Matthew but Peter had to be?

Now on Paul. Dude, is Acts in your canon? Simple question because all of your doubts are addressed in Acts and BTW in the epistles of Paul. If your contention is Paul was a false prophet, and you reject 97% of the NT just say so. It makes the these threads easier if one is honest about their theology and where it is derived. So with that...Paul received his commission straight from the Risen and Ascended Jesus Christ. You either believe that or not. If you don't believe that then you reject the book of Acts. Yet you have quoted from it to establish James as the head of the church of Jerusalem.

Jesus says we will believe in Jesus because of what Jesus' hand-picked said about Jesus.

See Acts 9.

Shaul tosses all of that out, and preaches a whole new religion.

No, Paul does not and you have not established such. Mere assertion at this point. Maybe you should start a thread on the above assertion

As for your last two questions: Read the OP, please, thank you in advance. Hint: my thoughts are the footnote.

My last two questions did address your footnotes. The evidence you presented did not support your conclusions. You presented a lot of quotes which were haphazardly organized and showed no argument for what you conclude. Basically you gave us a history lesson and then concluded with an assertion about why Matthew could not have been the author of Matthew, yet the history lesson did not prove such.

This is why I am asking again, and again. Perhaps look back at your own OP.

 

[redleghunter]

When I was a Dispensationalist, I heard those things, and I read the Theology that went behind it.

I got over it. I no longer think that the God who can't stand being around sinning flesh wants to take up residence in it. You're not one of those Imputed Righteousness Cult people are you? 'cause Jesus says they're buiding on sand.

Oh... and anyone who thinks same-day ascension-and-return is equal to 40-days-later must be using what the kids used to call new math.

Therefore, you have not answered my rebuttal.

 

[redleghunter]

Anyone who spends any time at all on the web will find answers proving any theory at all from any and all viewpoints. It seems like I'm being laughed at by someone who thinks same-day and 40-days equality can be had for the price of a telescope.

There may be a misunderstanding on your part. The author of the gospel according to Luke and Acts of the Apostles is the same author. Therefore, the end of Luke is establishing the resurrection, appearance, commission and ascension of Jesus Christ. Starting with Acts 1, the author expands on the post resurrection activities of Jesus Christ and the disciples. Luke 50-53 is what we would call today a 'transition paragraph.' A transition to Acts chapter 1.

It matters who said what about Jesus. Jesus says that they used to belong to the Father, and the Father gave them to Him. That meant that they were already following God.

How do you have assurance of this? I ask because I do not know what your canon looks like.

We don't know that about Luke or Mark... and the opposite is true about Shaul. He tells you that he made the followers of Jesus blaspheme.

Once again calling Paul a false prophet. Yet you provide no evidence.

If you are at all interested in the OP itself, you might try finding the book I quoted, by Roberts. Off-hand pot-shots have little likelihood of hitting a target which has yet to be seen. All that can be expected to happen to you, through this thread, is that you bore the messenger, win the approval of your peers, and rest on that sandy beach, where never the words of Jesus can spoil what you want to believe about God.

You are relatively new to CF. There is a section for book reviews. Coming on these threads and telling people 'to just trust me and read this book' usually causes threads into loops because the OP cannot engage other than using the book. Recommend going to the book review section.

 

[Vicomte13]

And why on earth would Peter have entrusted others to write down even one single word that Jesus had taught the 11? Doesn't it make more sense to step outside of the box and say that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, but that Peter almost had to have been the one who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

It makes the most sense to consider that Matthew got the information to fill in what happened before he joined from Peter.

It makes the most sense to consider that Mark had to "interpret" for Peter means that Peter spoke Aramaic, and could not write in Greek, so Mark did that for him.

 

[SBC]

Who Wrote The Gospel Attributed to Matthew?

I would attribute Matthews spoken words, to Chirst's Power of putting the Word of God IN Matthew.
I would attribute Matthews written words, to Scribes
I would attribute Matthews scroll words, to Recorders.
I would attribute Matthews transcribed words, to men of God who worked diligently with the power of God guiding them.

I would say most appropriately the Gospel of Matthew is called the Gospel According to Matthew.

I would say this is similar to how most of Scripture was written ~ with the exceptions -
Some perhaps by the hand of the man himself, in letter form.
And at times when Scripture was destroyed, it was rewritten from memory.

And of course, the time when God Himself etched with His finger the Ten Commandments on a stone tablet.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[PeterDona]

Not following.

The list is useful. For the rest of the discussion you folks are into such technicalities that I can not even follow it. That is not necessarily bad, because in some questions you must become technical to get to the truth. I realise I am underqualified in this thread even though I wanted to contribute. Therefore only a (probably failed) attempt at being humorous.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The premise of the early fathers was that the 4 gospels were of apostolic origin. Which is why they were accepted. Not the other way around.

I was largely speaking about our acceptance today; what is and isn't Canon comes to us through the general consensus of the Church down through the ages.

I would also say that I think the four Gospels can be understood to be apostolic without necessarily having been authored by the apostles directly. That I think it probably unlikely that Matthew wrote the Gospel attributed to him doesn't mean that I think it defective or un-apostolic; I regard it very much as authoritative and apostolic because it faithfully captures the authoritative and apostolic teaching of and about Christ, it is an authoritative and faithful presentation of the Gospel narrative for the Church. The anonymity of authorship is not a criticism against the text, or a means of depriving it of its value--only an admission of its anonymity--it remains Holy Scripture and a faithful presentation of the Gospel narrative which the Church has confessed and believed since the very beginning. And it remains most certainly true.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[redleghunter]

The list is useful. For the rest of the discussion you folks are into such technicalities that I can not even follow it. That is not necessarily bad, because in some questions you must become technical to get to the truth. I realise I am underqualified in this thread even though I wanted to contribute. Therefore only a (probably failed) attempt at being humorous.

Thank you for the reply. I was just looking for some elaboration and apologize if I offended you in any way.

God Bless.