Why do people think Matthew wasn't there?

[DeerGlow]

I've heard people saying that Matthew's gospel is almost a parroting of Mark's gospel and that he wasn't actually there for things like Jesus healing the mute demoniac from the unpardonable sin passages. They use this reasoning to argue that he changed some events (like healing a blind and dumb/mute demoniac into healing two blind men and a separate man who was mute). In Mark and Luke, the Twelve are appointed some unclear time before that, and in Matthew's own gospel it is three chapters before. I believe all scripture is Spirit-breathed and also believe bible inerrancy so it sounds like some people blame apparent discrepancies on earthly things. It seems like it was very possible Matthew WAS there anyway, the gospels do line up for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I've heard people saying

It is apparent throughout history,
"people said" a lot more that was false than was true.
YHWH'S WORD even says "The lie will be called true, and the truth will be called a lie" routinely (taught that way/ published that way).

So it is and has been best (as HE SAYS) to trust YHWH in all things, and especially in what HE HIMSELF says in and about HIS WORD.

 

[Winken]

Remember that Matthew was written to a Jewish audience (entirely). Mark was written to Jews who had ventured out to Rome. Luke was written to Hellenistic Jews, those of Jewish origin but had long before become Greeks. Mark and Luke are commentaries on Matthew presented for the understanding of different audiences. Luke was the traveling companion of Paul.

With that in mind, it is not advisable to compare the presentations.

 

[DeerGlow]

It is apparent throughout history,
"people said" a lot more that was false than was true.
YHWH'S WORD even says "The lie will be called true, and the truth will be called a lie" routinely (taught that way/ published that way).

So it is and has been best (as HE SAYS) to trust YHWH in all things, and especially in what HE HIMSELF says in and about HIS WORD.

I said the I've heard thing because I want to bring up the topic while making it clear this is not my view.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I said the I've heard thing because I want to bring up the topic while making it clear this is not my view.... ...

That would be good (that it is not your view),
except then,
what are you looking for here ? (most views on open to the world public forums are worse than most views that have already been tried and tested for hundreds of years and proven true by YHWH'S WORD)

i.e. it is hard to find tried, tested, proven true "views",
and all must be tested by YHWH'S WORD and being continually in prayer.

 

[Anguspure]

Mathew understands a whole lot about the geography, the politics and the personalities in the situations described by him. It would be very difficult to reconstruct a convincing copy account like this from the book of Mark alone.

I can see nothing wrong with the exchange of ideas and memories between the guys involved after all they lived together for a long time, and obviously would have been going over the same stuff over and over again just while they were talking among themselves.

Nor can I see a problem with them having different recollections of events, this is natural after all, and in fact evidence that the accounts aren't contrived.

I beleive that the words recorded in these letters by the Apostles are inspired and what is written, as it was written, serves exactly the purpose that our Lord intends it to serve, (apparant) warts and all.

 

[DeerGlow]

That would be good (that it is not your view),
except then,
what are you looking for here ? (most views on open to the world public forums are worse than most views that have already been tried and tested for hundreds of years and proven true by YHWH'S WORD)

i.e. it is hard to find tried, tested, proven true "views",
and all must be tested by YHWH'S WORD and being continually in prayer.

Because I think God can use other believers to correct us, and use our fellowship to help us refine each other in the truth. Before I go off on this I'm 100% right because I think so I think it might be good to talk with other believers. (Not calling you arrogant just saying I tend to make a lot of errors in judgement so I'm asking other people too. Like with testing the spirits, I'll still take everything with a grain of salt.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeerGlow]

Remember that Matthew was written to a Jewish audience (entirely). Mark was written to Jews who had ventured out to Rome. Luke was written to Hellenistic Jews, those of Jewish origin but had long before become Greeks. Mark and Luke are commentaries on Matthew presented for the understanding of different audiences. Luke was the traveling companion of Paul.

With that in mind, it is not advisable to compare the presentations.

Not advisable to compare them? I may be misunderstanding, but it sounds like you're saying pick the one you think is most relevant and go off that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I believe all scripture is Spirit-breathed and also believe bible inerrancy so it sounds like some people blame apparent discrepancies on earthly things. It seems like it was very possible Matthew WAS there anyway, the gospels do line up for it.

Yes and Amein ! ( COOL! and DELIGHTFUL! (by faith) ) ....

Because I think God can use other believers to correct us, and use our fellowship to help us refine each other in the truth. Before I go off on this I'm 100% right because I think so I think it might be good to talk with other believers. (Not calling you arrogant just saying I tend to make a lot of errors in judgement so I'm asking other people too. Like with testing the spirits, I'll still take everything with a grain of salt.)

 

[Winken]

Not advisable to compare them? I may be misunderstanding, but it sounds like you're saying pick the one you think is most relevant and go off that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are all relevant to those of the Hebrew heritage; the separation is for the audience in mind in that day. For one to be "most relevant" to the reader today is not applicable. While we are Spiritually blessed with the three, we are not the specific audience in each. The Jews in Rome, and the Hellenistic Jews, were far removed from 30 a.d. Their "explanations" required Mark and Luke to write in different terminolgies from Matthew. The Hellensists had all but forgotten their [edit] Jewish heritage --- they spoke Greek, and were not familiar with the precise time of Christ.

 

[DeerGlow]

They are all relevant to those of the Hebrew heritage; the separation is for the audience in mind in that day. For one to be "most relevant" to the reader today is not applicable. While we are Spiritually blessed with the three, we are not the specific audience in each. The Jews in Rome, and the Hellenistic Jews, were far removed from 30 a.d. Their "explanations" required Mark and Luke to write in different terminolgies from Matthew. The Hellensists had all but forgotten their [edit] Jewish heritage --- they spoke Greek, and were not familiar with the precise time of Christ.

I'm not sure where you're going with that, but I am talking about using the three parallels to confirm one thing that shows up the same way in all three.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Winken]

I'm not sure where you're going with that, but I am talking about using the three parallels to confirm one thing that shows up the same way in all three.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK ... I think the answer relates to the audience. Mark and Luke wrote to different audiences. Their perspective was based upon that. We can be assured that they were all Gospel Truth, no matter what.