[WENDLE]

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.

[aimhigh]

. . theology is too important to be left to the theologians . .

excellent quote.

[Robert DeLong]

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

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.

[fruser1]

Why don't they just check the registration at the copyright office?

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".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

[Eddie01]

3
“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.

5
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.

6
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.

7
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.

8
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.

9
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.

10
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.

12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

That doesn’t sound like bullshit to me.

[Bob434]

I thought Lucas McCain wrote the book of Matthew? Or was that the book of Luke?

[Falconspeed]

According to Steven O’Reilly, “Catholics cannot assume the good faith of recent Catholic scripture scholars or theologians.”

According to the Bishops’ page on St. Matthew, “In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there.”

http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Matthew&ch=

It seems to me that the Bishops’ statement is more clear than O’Reilly’s statement. St. Matthew wrote a Gospel and O’Reilly is casting doubt on some scholars. O’Reilly needs to take a walk around the block and realize that there is only one enemy who can only be defeated when his neck is crushed by a lady. Take a walk around the block and support the lady.

“She shall crush his head” (Gn 3: 15)

[Falconspeed]

According to Steven O’Reilly, “Catholics cannot assume the good faith of recent Catholic scripture scholars or theologians.”

According to the Bishops’ page on St. Matthew, “In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there.”

http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Matthew&ch=

It seems to me that the Bishops’ statement is more clear than O’Reilly’s statement. St. Matthew wrote a Gospel and O’Reilly is casting doubt on some scholars. O’Reilly needs to take a walk around the block and realize that there is only one enemy who can only be defeated when his neck is crushed by a lady. Take a walk around the block and support the lady.

“She shall crush his head” (Gn 3: 15)

[circlecity]

"It is just that much of what has passed for scholarship over the last 50-60 years has been a celebration of a cult of doubt. The test of the sophistication of a scripture scholar seems to rest not on his knowledge but in the degree of doubt he can create with regard to the received understanding and order of things"

You see, sticking to established theology and history doesn't get you any notoriety. It doesn't sell books, get published in the liberal academic press, doesn't get you invited to speak at seminars and doesn't get you interviewed on CNN and History channel specials. I think the motivating factor behind all the deconstructionist "scholarship" over the last 60 years has been greed, career enhancement, attention seeking, pride and personal gain.

[Zionist Conspirator]

They've been teaching for decades that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are adaptations of ancient Babylonian and Canaanite mythology. Where has The Remnant been???

For decades officially approved Catholic bibles with the nihil obstat and imprimatur have claimed this very thing, teaching it in the commentary. Where was The Remnant?

For decades mainstream Catholic publications have attacked Fundamentalist Protestants for not recognizing the mythological nature of most of the "old testament"(!!!) Where has The Remnant been?

The "one true original" church has played the coward, leaving the field of battle to "poor white trash" whom liberals dismiss as the architects of "jim crow." They have not only been silent . . . they have been on the other side. Catholic dioceses have always supported the ACLU in its lawsuits against creation. Where was The Remnant while all this was going on?

What about all the smirking Catholic FReepers whose modus operandi is casting doubt and skepticism at what they hypocritically claim to be the Word of G-d which "they" gave to the world (even though it was the Jews who gave it to the world)?

The johnny-come-latelys at The Remnant deserve this. They have been silent for decades while poor rural Southern Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Celts have had to face nihilism all alone. They deserve this--every bit of it!!! I hope they get just as much assistance as they've given!