[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.

[Celtic Conservative]

WTH are you talking about? Either it’s the word of God or it isn’t. No middle ground here.

CC

[ebb tide]

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

[ebb tide]

The book is very flawed but Jesus is very real and the book ,like all history is hearsay —not admissible evidence.

The Bible is very flawed? And all history is hearsay? Then why do you believe in Jesus Christ?

[hinckley buzzard]

It is a mistake to read the gospels as history. They are not history. They are testaments to the source of faith of the early church.

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.

[ealgeone]

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.

If you doubt the accounts in the NT...how do Who Jesus is and how to have salvation?