Posted on 04/03/2017 5:16:22 PM PDT by ebb tide
Thanks. I love this stuff.”Matthew” was a pseudo name for some guy 80 years after the resurrection.. Total hearsay. Same with “Luke” that said an actual STAR was over the manger at 1 billion degrees F. The book is very flawed but Jesus is very real and the book ,like all history is hearsay —not admissible evidence. They just weren’t there.
excellent quote.
WTH are you talking about? Either it’s the word of God or it isn’t. No middle ground here.
CC
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
Matthew is spoken of five times in the New Testament; first in Matthew 9:9, when called by Jesus to follow Him, and then four times in the list of the Apostles, where he is mentioned in the seventh (Luke 6:15, and Mark 3:18), and again in the eighth place (Matthew 10:3, and Acts 1:13). The man designated in Matthew 9:9, as “sitting in the custom house”, and “named Matthew” is the same as Levi, recorded in Mark 2:14, and Luke 5:27, as “sitting at the receipt of custom”. The account in the three Synoptics is identical, the vocation of Matthew-Levi being alluded to in the same terms. Hence Levi was the original name of the man who was subsequently called Matthew; the Maththaios legomenos of Matthew 9:9, would indicate this.
The fact of one man having two names is of frequent occurrence among the Jews. It is true that the same person usually bears a Hebrew name such as “Shaoul” and a Greek name, Paulos. However, we have also examples of individuals with two Hebrew names as, for instance, Joseph-Caiaphas, Simon-Cephas, etc. It is probable that Mattija, “gift of Iaveh”, was the name conferred upon the tax-gatherer by Jesus Christ when He called him to the Apostolate, and by it he was thenceforth known among his Christian brethren, Levi being his original name.
Catholic Encyclopedia
The Bible is very flawed? And all history is hearsay? Then why do you believe in Jesus Christ?
My unscholarly reasoning has always been that Matthew was likely one of the few of the disciples that was literate during their time with Jesus, so it would have been natural for him to write an account of it.
They most likely are written documents derived from earlier oral traditions that arose shortly after the Resurrection..
The Two Source Theory has the advantage of parsimony, as compared to the "it is possible" contortions of the present writer.
Where do you come up with this rot? Especially during Passion Week. Do you two deny the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ? Do you two deny Christ's Resurrrection.
Or are you cherry-pickers?
Church history can get pretty confusing, as the author of the article is finding out and having trouble grasping.
It is agreed that Matthew authored the Gospel but physically wrote in Hebrew, his native tongue. This "version" is no longer extant. The Canon uses the Greek version, of which the physical author is unknown.
The short answer provided by the Commission above ("in the affirmative") does not provide enough context. Looking at that and the author's rant would lead you to believe there is some conspiracy going on. This is a lot like how the press today mislead folks by omitting certain facts.
To put the Commission's answer in a better context, here is part of the longer version of their short answer:
The fact that the Fathers and all ecclesiastical writers, and even the Church itself from the very beginning, have used as canonical the Greek text of the Gospel known as St. Matthew's, not even excepting those who have expressly handed down that the Apostle Matthew wrote in his native tongue, proves for certain that this very Greek Gospel is identical in substance with the Gospel written by the same Apostle in his native language.
So a clearer answer is that the Gospel's authorship is Matthew in substance. The author of the article in the post is thrown by the fact that we don't actually know who put the ink to paper in the Greek version and that that doesn't matter since what is important is that it is accepted as canon.
Scholarly study of authorship, etc., makes for interesting reading, but is not a foundation for spiritual life. Don't let debates in reason concerning earthly facts distract you from the spiritual truth, which is what appears to be happening to the article's author for, if it were not, he would not be so upset by this "temporal trivia".
No. I absolutely believe the Resurrection of the Son. I do not worship that book. Total hearsay except for John. Not sure about Revelation. The rest are hand me down hearsay, No question about that. Written 50 to 110 years after the actual Resurrection of our Lord. Full of errors and contradiction with no debate on that. You really don’t want to go there.
Who gave you your revelation? Your mailman or maybe your dry cleaner?
I believe is the fog of the historic truth that is written in 4th hand hearsay as containing some facts if you can read through the errors and contradictions which are immense!!
So you are your own cherry-picker of the Bible.
Good luck with that.
What cherries do you pick?
And so just what is your basis for determining what is true and what is error?
Please point us to the standard you used to judge the Word of God.
None. I accept and believe the Bible in its entirety.
One standard is Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23 and when you get through- tell me who the Father of Jesus IS!!? Good luck.
Are we saved or not saved on by the Cross and belief that Jesus is the Son of God? Simple question.Simple answer. Total contradiction in the “bible” , Even Paul is full of legalism and contradiction with absolutely no doubt. Worship that book assembled 300 years after the resurrection if you want. Free country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.