.
No, I said that his writing of the gospel was proof.
His framing of Yeshua’s total dedication to Torah in particular demonstrates a deep understanding of what the gospel of the kingdom is and when it was delivered.
.
No, I said that his writing of the gospel was proof.
What you said in post 68, after commenting on my level of literacy is:
The original Gospel of Mathew written in his native tongue made it plain that he was a cohen
This claim, that if one consults the original Gospel written in Matthew’s native tongue, one will be led to the plain conclusion that he was a Cohen, is the one that I want to see backed up, and it is a much stronger claim than the claim of post 92.
I have personally poured much study into a copy of the gospel in the native tongue and never reached that conclusion. Of course it is entirely possible that my Hebrew/Aramaic is poor enough that I miss much that is obvious. It is also possible that the textual tradition to which I am heir is flawed. I’m happy to remedy either of the problems, especially with regards to a few key verses if key verses can be pointed out.
Your arguments from 92 would better serve to “prove” that the author of Hebrews (who I hold, with tradition is Paul) is a Cohen
Basically, in 68 you claimed the equivalent of a full house and in 92 you backed off to two pairs. If all you have is your assertions in 92, you serve to bolster the case that not every “expert” in scripture should be read because many make unwarranted—and false-claims that can mislead the unwary.