While it is true that the Jews had crucified their own Messiah, there was still hope for the seed of Abraham. There is a lot more documented evidence but I will not bore you with more. If none finds, read Quraan. Thus, just as modern-day journalists report on meetings between heads of state without mentioning the go-betweens, Matthew makes no mention of the elders. The special emphasis of Matthew is that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by Old Testament Prophets. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord.
That is just a tiny portion of the evidence against the truth and reliability of the gospel accounts, for they were written many decades after the death of Jesus by non-eye witnesses who were not contemporary alive at the same time with Jesus. I know basics like Matthew writing for a Jewsih audience and representing Jesus as the new Moses. How do we know that it is not actually Zeus instead of the Christian God? The quotes that are attributed to Josephus are known to be forgeries. In Matthew and Luke we have the story of the miraculous conception -- he is represented as the Son of God. . If you are looking for more information on how the gospels of Matthew and Luke compare to Mark and each other, you can read this article on the synoptic gospels. Matthew wanted the Jews to know with certainty that the long-expected and long-anticipated Messiah had come and Jesus had perfectly fulfilled it.
Are you saying that the gospels are of little value as eye witness accounts of his life? Although your approach is also not without assumptions, as it assumes that the early church fathers were basing what they said on solid tradition, and yet how can you be so sure that there was not speculation on part of some Church fathers? I refer to Matthew 18:21-22. It's getting more and more marginalized. Of course, there are other liver diseases such as Hep B and rarer ones that can cause cirrhosis. It assumes that not only one, not only two, not only three but four different gospels were originally written anonymously. John 13:20 where Jesus swears to God that if the public welcome his apostles, they are welcoming him as well.
There was every reason in the world to want to assign it to the authority of Peter. Not much is known about this women, but from my understanding, she was not a Jew. I am not going to argue or debate this with anyone further on this site. This is common knowledge to historians. If the gospels are true why is the Bible the only source for what it contains? The names were added by the early church to give apostolic tradition.
There are, however, cluers in both Matthew and John that the author is part of the narrative. It seems pretty clear to me that logically, one of these church fathers, or both even, is wrong and represents a false tradition. If a scribe was used then the disciple did not write the text as this verse claims. James and Hebrews were written in Greek not Hebrew. There are clues in the gospel to this, for instance we went through it about 12 verses a week and we found that it is fractal in nature. Now we can see the reason for four gospels: the savior was prophesied as a servant, a king, a man, and the son of God.
Remember that Paul spoke Hebrew and yet wrote in good, if somewhat convoluted and complex Greek. It is widely accepted by the majority of scholars that the gospel message of was passed by word of mouth for some decades before written accounts became necessary. All four books were written and circulated anonymously, and only later did Christian leaders maintain that they were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Matthew shifts the audience to the bystanders in order to make clear to his readers that God would have them know that Jesus is His Son. As I looked, a stormwind came from the north, a huge cloud with flashing fire, from the midst of which something gleamed like electrum. They were not that well educated, they could possibly count, and sign their names, probably with a X, but not much more. There is plenty of indirect evidence that has lead the majority of scholars to accept that the original autographs did not have the titles naming the author.
They sparkled with a gleam like burnished bronze. Mark is a strong advocate of the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. What's the significant difference between Matthew and Luke and Mark? I took this to mean that the Greek copy of Matthew that we now have, is a good example of a new testament text being incorrectly attributed to an author who did not write it. Also if Jesus was God, then why did he not realise that in Mark 2:26 he got the name of the High Priest wrong! See the link below for a great way to compare the gospels on your own. My evidence is internal in that sense.
Furthermore, I can rely on the fact that absolutely 100% of all the church fathers agreed that these gospels where written by who the manuscripts themselves claim to have been written. As they still do, when touched by this magnificent spirit. Just think about this for a second. So all your efforts may go in vain. Related to Matthew, I think we have the logia embedded in the gospel as the sayings and deeds of Jesus. Each gospel was written for a different original group of people, by a different author, who was trying to accomplish a different purpose.
I don't think that the people who are responsible for those documents were staying up at night worried about those kinds of things. Of the twenty-one chapters, containing 722 verses, about thirty-six percent of the material seven chapters of 257 verses involves only a twenty-four hour period. And that means the language of invective gets nastier and nastier. The birth narratives do not appear in the gospel of Mark our earliest canonical gospel or John our latest canonical gospel, which suggests that they were unknown during the first century. Now, let me respond with two points so you can see this is not enough to claim all the other claims I mentioned you said previously. Matthew does so in a highly accurate historical genealogy. This is mostly held to be true because frequently in the Gospel of John, John is referred to as 'the one whom Jesus loved.
Only in recent history have doctors practicing modern medicine been able to subvert his evil intentions! So we have a church committee deciding to endorse the written testimony of one of the founders of their very religion? Ehrman, What do scholars know concerning the practice of early 1st century Jewish tax collecting? This gospel was written for people familiar with the Old Testament, both the and the prophets. Scholars say that none of the gospels could have been written by eyewitnesses to the events portrayed. I think these problems are very old. The Greeks were preoccupied with a consideration of man. Quibus cunctis perspicue ostenditur quattuor tantum debere euangelia suscipi et omnes apocriphorum nenias mortuis magis hereticis quam ecclesiasticis uiuis canendas. How do the four gospels evolve then? For example, all you Christians out there, what would you believe if you ahd been born in Pakistan to an everyday Pakistani family? However, they believe that John emphasized one aspect of Jesus' ministry -- that spent near Jerusalem. Your whole post is utter gobbledygook.