"Matthew compiled the reports in a Hebrew manner of speech, but each interpreted them as he could."
Matthew wrote in Hebrew, or more likely, in Aramaic which is a Hebrew dialect that was the language of Jesus' day. He did not write the original Gospel in Greek!
It is obvious that whoever wrote a book called Matthew, the book now known to Christianity and which opens the New Testament was obviously rewritten in Greek by some later person. (most likely written by a Gentile or heavily edited by one) It was probably at that time that the now-cherished traditions of the birth and death accounts were tacked onto the sayings of Jesus! This is also probably when they tried to de-judaize Jesus. jmo
This is what Papias says about Mark:
"And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who was indeed Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who as necessary would make his teachings but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them."
Begs the question. Just who is this Mark? And since this Mark, is an interpreter for Peter, that means that the Gospel of Mark (deceptively named), isn't even giving a first hand account. Also notice he wrote down the sayings and deeds of Jesus, which exclude the birth and death accounts as we now have them. Now if the "sayings or deeds" of Jesus were all that Mark wrote down, and if, as so many authorities now assert, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, from where did the genealogies and the birth and death narratives in the Gospels come from? Even with these questions, keep in mind that this particular "Mark" wasn't personally present at the events and sayings he reports.
The first New Testament was assembled by Marcion in 140 C.E.:
Here are some of the passages which are NOT found in Marcion's Gospel of Christ in his "first" New Testament:
* The birth of John the Baptist.
* The birth of Jesus.
* The baptism of Jesus.
* Jesus' genealogy of Luke 3:23-38.
* The temptation narrative of Luke 4:1-13.
* Jesus' preaching at Nazareth in Luke 4:16-30.
"Marcion, rejected the entire Old Testament. He accepted the following Christian writings in this order:
* Gospel according to Luke
* Galatians
* I Corinthians
* II Corinthians
* Romans
* I Thessalonians
* II Thessalonians
* Ephesians (which Marcion called Laodiceans)
* Colossians
* Philemon
* Philippians
but only after pruning and editorial adjustment. In his opinion the 12 apostles misunderstood the teaching of Christ, and, holding him to be the Messiah of the Jewish God, falsified his words from that standpoint. Passages that Marcion could regard only as Judaizing interpolations, that had been smuggled into the text by biased editors, had to be removed so the authentic text of Gospel and Apostle could once again be available. After these changes, the Gospel according to Luke became the Evangelicon, and the 10 Pauline letters, the Apostolikon.
Marcion rejected the following Christian writings:
* Gospel according to Matthew
* Gospel according to John"
Some things to think about. And no, this post is not directed AT you.
He's Catholic too , no? To say Jesus had actual brothers and sisters would destroy the eternal virgin stuff, and discredit the teachings of his church.
Heck, according to scripture, (if taken literally) the temple of God is within you. That would tear down the walls of the church as well, because huge gold filled buildings would mean nothing.
What we need here is an unbiased source to find the answers. Neither Catholic, nor straight Biblical.
How about the Amish? They take every word literally. I'll ask them. They've kept the same teaching forever, without influence to change anything.