[boatbums]

Thus, Christ was filled with God-given knowledge (inspired, that is) as one would expect God to be but that doesn’t say anything about Matthew, or his text, or even if he wrote the text. Remember, I was specifically asking for proof - from scripture alone - that Matthew wrote the Gospel (you provided none), that his Gospel was inspired (you provided none; an interesting theory, but one that logically fails is all you provided).

I can't believe you are still not satisfied with the answers to your challenge. Are you seriously doubting that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Gospel attributed to him? If so, although there is ample evidence that the author was never in question to the early church, can you at least consider that:

1. No other author's name was attached to this writing out of all the extant copies that existed then or still do today.

2. It was never and would never have been accepted if the writer was anonymous.

3. (From http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html)Second-century testimony is unanimous in attributing the four Gospels to the persons that now carry their name. This suggests that they received their titles early; for if they had not, there would have been a great deal of speculation as to who had written them - "a variation of titles would have inevitably risen," as had happened with the apocryphal gospels. [Thie.EvJ, 15]; see also [Heng.Mark, 82] It is rather harder to believe that the Gospels circulated anonymously for 60 or more years and then someone finally thought to put authors on them -- and managed to get the whole church across the Roman Empire to agree.

4. Why then were such unlikely characters chosen as authors? Luke is mentioned a few times by name in the NT, a very obscure personage. Mark was a rotten kid; he abandoned Paul (Acts 15). Matthew was an apostle, but he was also a tax collector - would you pick the IRS man, and an obscure apostle, to author your Gospel? [Wilk.JUF, 28] Only John is a logical choice for a pseudonymous author.

The strength of this point is demonstrated in that some will use the rationale that obscure persons were deliberately chosen as authors in order to fool us into thinking that this would mean they were authentic.

5. How could the early Christian community honor the Gospels as authoritative unless they knew who had written them?

6. Under the "Q/Marcan priority" hypothesis, how is it they suppose that "Matthew" and "Luke" would choose to use an anonymous document as a source? Mark could not be recognized as authoritative until it was known what source it came from; yet if the critics are right, "Mark" was considered authoritative enough to use not by just one, but by two others working independently of one another.

There is also internal evidence for proving Matthew is the author, which I gave you already in another post. The link to that information is http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.html. In it, we learn:

In line with the criterion that we would expect the claimed author of a document to reflect the vocabulary and interest of that author, there are certain touches that point to the figure we know as Matthew:

- In the story about a publican called to follow Jesus, the publican is called "Levi" in Mark and Luke, but "Matthew" in Matthew; in the same vein, Mark and Luke refer to "his house" whereas Matthew refers to "the house" as one would when writing of their own house in a third-person narrative context.

If Matthew was a tax collector, and, as suggested by his alternate name, a Levite, the content of his Gospel fits with what his expected life experiences would be. A Levite like Matthew would normally be a Pharisee, and would receive training for Temple service. In line with this, Matthew shows signs of proper Jewish religious training: His significant use of OT quotes; his use of typology, and his concern with Jewish issues. But because there would be room for only so many Levites at the Temple, someone like Matthew might be forced to seek employment elsewhere -- and if he found work as a tax collector, he would be rejected by his Pharasaic cohorts.

- Matthew also shows through his writing that he is a Hellenized Jew: he has good Greek style, and would appear to be "at home" in the Roman world. Again, this fits right in with the idea of Matthew as a tax collector.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I can’t believe you are still not satisfied with the answers to your challenge.”

None of the responses fit the criteria laid out in the challenge. Thus, there is no reason to be satisfied.

“Are you seriously doubting that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Gospel attributed to him?”

Nope, not one bit.

“If so, although there is ample evidence that the author was never in question to the early church, can you at least consider that:”

I can consider all of your points - and some are very interesting - but none actually answer the challenge properly. Take this for instance:

“1. No other author’s name was attached to this writing out of all the extant copies that existed then or still do today.”

That is not from scripture alone. Hence, it doesn’t fit the criteria of the challenge.

Or this one:

“- Matthew also shows through his writing that he is a Hellenized Jew: he has good Greek style, and would appear to be “at home” in the Roman world. Again, this fits right in with the idea of Matthew as a tax collector.”

Well, it might suggest that the author COULD BE a tax collector. It is not proof that he is a tax collector, nor does it prove he is a hellenized Jew.

And so on.

[metmom]

Wait a minute......

Doesn't the Catholic church claim to have written Scripture?

And don't Catholics claim that the RCC is what established canon?

In questioning the authorship of the gospels, isn't one then by default, then questioning the decisions of the ECF's in their assigning authorship to the writings of Scripture?

I though that sort of thing was not allowed in Catholicism, that is questioning the church on spiritual matters.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Thank you boatbums.

That's pretty bullet-proof, but I have a feeling any proof presented that the Bible is divinely inspired will be rejected.

It goes back to what God said about those who do not know Him:

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Unless a person has been given the Holy Spirit through true salvation in Christ, and can see with the spiritual eyes that can only be given by the Holy Spirit, he does not understand the things of God, and Scripture is foolishness to him.

Nothing anyone says will enable an unsaved person to see. Only Christ can change the condition of spiritual blindness.