Who was the author of Matthew?

[jd01]

Who was the author of Matthew? There is almost no information on him.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Let's start a fresreply to wrap this response up

We see it again in the Blasphemy charge nonsense. Messiah did not claim to be a divine being pretty much identical with God. That would only be the view of Greek, Paulinist, Christians.
Yeah, because religious people never utter nonsense, right?

They utter it all the time, Tammy

Well there you go.

but the point here is that the interpretation of 'Messiah' and 'Son of God' as Blasphemy is not an understanding that the Jews of the time would have had (or so I gather from reading experts).

That's because it is not blasphemy. But since when does that stop people from leveling charges of blasphemy toward others?

This identification with a divine being was something that only (Later) Christians had.

I'm going to assume (perhaps mistakenly) that by this you mean that Christ was claiming to be God, Himself. He was not. The Son of God, yes, though. More than what they thought the Messiah was supposed to be, sure, and He had just finished telling them that He is from BEFORE Abraham.

I disagree that Matthew did not 'have it in' for the Jews as a whole. They all did. John has Jesus slamming and damning all the Jews,

(Tam) Well except of course for all the Jews He healed, that He had compassion upon, that He taught and fed, forgave and showed mercy toward, and of course except for His disciples (Jews and Samaritans <- both of whom were physical Israel), the apostles (who were all Jews), Mary, Martha (Jews)... all those He asked forgiveness for on the cross...

Right?

**

Question?

Observation, rather.

I meant that I had a question (which followed), lol. But we can go with your comment too:

Apart from the marked partiality of Jesus towards Gentiles

"I came only for the lost sheep of Israel."

Jews and Samaritans (both Israel, Jews from the two-tribe Kingdom of Judah; Samaritans from the 10-tribe Kingdom of Israel) are the ones He healed and had compassion upon.

It took great faith for Christ to grant the gentile woman her request.

So I'm not sure where you're getting partiality at all, much less marked partiality.

(reflecting the Pauline view that Gentiles were more worthy to be God's people than the Jews were)

What about the following (really all of Romans 11:11-28 disputes what you just said, but here are some highlights):

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and so all Israel will be saved.

Jesus was friendly, even loving, with the Jews around him. I think this was a question for the early Christians - why did Jesus go to the Jews at all?

The earliest Christians were Jews. Just saying'.

And the Messiah is a promise made to Israel. Who else would the Messiah have gone to first? The covenant was between Israel and God. Christ came first to the Jews, and the Samaritans (who are also Israel, from the ten 'lost' tribes), and then after being rejected (not by all, but by the nation), the invitation into the new covenant opened up also to the Gentiles.

It was pretty much part of the plan that the Jews would reject Jesus and he would be killed.

Because that is what they were going to choose to do (harden their hearts). But gentiles (including among those who profess to be Christian) do this as well... so who can boast?

Judas and the Sanhedrin were the mechanics of God's plan while Peter and Pilate were trying to stop it. Matthew sees that well enough when he slaps Peter down for saying that Jesus should not die. Matthew may not have known Hebrew but he knew Christian theology.

Matthew didn't do anything except record what he (or others) saw and heard.

This explains a thing that always puzzled me. the ambivalent representation of the disciples. They may have been his chosen companions, but they were weak, stupid and let him down, particularly Peter. His own family, his mother, were shown as being worth less than his followers. If Christians wrote this, it would explain why they were shown in this manner.

I don't think your logic follows. The RCC in particular pretty much venerates Peter, regardless of what he did or did not do. Not to mention their elevation of Mary.

They were just people with flaws.

( Tam)Do you suppose the prophets (at least some of whom were Jews) were also anti-Semitic (which appears to be what you are suggesting of the gospel writers)? Because the prophets speak some pretty harsh words for Jerusalem (and Samaria). Such as likening them to Oholah and Oholibah (both lewd women, adulteresses, prostitutes, unfaithful). What in the NT is out of character from the descriptions in the OT?

(Trans) A good question. Now Paul was in no doubt that the OT provided many quotes (or misquotes) that showed that God had turned his back on the Jews and made 'a people that are not my people' his people. The attitude was there even amongst non - Christians. But that didn't mean anti semitic, because neither Paul nor the OT prophets saw Jews being damned and their Children for ever while the Gentiles would be saved. The OT was wanting to see backsliders punished to bring them back to God, not damned forever, and the whole of Jewry with them, because they killed God. But that is what we see in Matthew.

Where do we see this in Matthew?

(Trans)even to having Jesus talk in parables so they would not understand and possibly be saved. The writers wanted to see the Jews damned, and Christians saw to it that they were if they did not convert (and didn't like them much even if they did), and this persecution is not vanished even today. Nice job Christians.
{Tam) That was religion, and the people who belonged to it (people who may have claimed to be Christian, though that does not mean that they WERE Christian). That wasn't anyone listening to Christ or following Him. Who did He force to believe in Him? Who did He kill or torture or persecute if they did not 'convert'? As I recall, He asked forgiveness for the people who did these things TO Him: "Father forgive them, they know not what they do"... and that is recorded in the gospels... He also said 'forgive and you will be forgiven'... and that is recorded in the gospels. He also said "BLESS those who curse you, do good to those who persecute you, love your enemies that you may be sons of your father in heaven "... and that is recorded in the gospels.

Nobody was Christian in Jesus' day and (assuming fsoa the gospel as true) Some of the gospels imply that the Jews were already earmarked to not be saved - they did not listen because God had made it so they couldnoty understand. They were pre -dammed for what ever damning followed death or the Last Days (whichever doctrine you pick)

You can't look at the religion that calls itself "Christian" or "Christianity" and expect it to show you who Christ is and what He was about. That religion is not from Him and does not know Him. The proof is there in the history books, a history that commits and even orders acts that are in direct contradiction with the commands of Christ. It's also there in the teachings - but they also teach a little truth to 'gloss over' the falsehood (because how else to mislead those who are seeking truth)?

Sorry, Tam, you will have to take it up with those Other Christians. I am not to blame for the DMC (Doctrinal Mainstream of the Church.)

Since you are presenting it here, I am taking it up here (with you).



Peace again to you!

[tam]

Peace to you,

Re: Who was the author of Matthew?
Post #53
Post by tam » Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:32 pm

Peace to you,
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 3:40 pm
Ok Tam. That would not be enough for me to conclude that "John"... edited it heavily to add his own preaching and arguments put into Jesus' mouth. Maybe "John" has the most detail because he was an eyewitness to most of these accounts. Or for whatever reason, maybe he remembers more clearly and in more detail. Perhaps because - as promised - he was reminded in the spirit of what Christ said and did. A non-believer is unlikely to accept that last part, but since my Lord has done the same with me, I cannot discount it.

The point is - what you have is a question, not evidence that "John" made stuff up. That question being, "why are there things in 'John' that are not recorded in the other three gospels'.

So "John" wrote a more detailed account. I am sorry, but that is not evidence that "john" made stuff up."

That won't do. My argument is that John includes stuff that the synoptics don't have - the sermons and rows with the 'Jews; the raising of Lazarus. This is important stuff and you need a good reason why they didn't even hint at it.
But since you don't know the reason - good or bad, you cannot logically conclude that they had no good reason.
John was supposedly an eyewitness or using an eyewitness account. But so were the other gospels. Mathew was supposed to be eyewitness (but demonstrably isn't) and Mark and Luke supposedly talked to people who were eyewitnesses.
I don't like to make assumptions (and I don't care much about tradition).

The author of John claims to be an eyewitness (the disciple Christ loved), and this has been confirmed to me as Lazarus, so I accept that. There is also no evidence refuting it. Lazarus is a Jew.
The author of Luke states upfront that he is not an eyewitness, but instead investigated things and wrote an orderly account for a single person, based on testimonies handed down from those who were eyewitnesses.
The author of Mark makes no statement about himself (I can accept that this is Peter's son, Mark, but am open to being corrected - with actual evidence, not just conjecture).
The author of Matthew makes no statement about himself (tradition states Levi/Matthew... and that might be correct... but I do not know, myself).

I'm not claiming to know their mind, I'm claiming to know what makes sense. Supose there is a court case and a lawyer is trying to prove his client innicent. Is it reasonabler to suppose that if there was a good alibi, he wouldn't present it? Of course he would.

So you have a resurrection of a dead friend, and John mentions it (not bothering about putting his witness in the crosshairs) but not one of the synoptics even gives it a couple of lines.

The author of John IS the witness (the dead/resurrected friend... Simon Lazarus).

We can get nowhere by looking at the Bible and trying to prove the disciples were who is claimed or the writers of the gospels, or their informants. What we can do is pay attention to clues that show that they cannot be eyewitnesses. One of the nativities has to be a lie. And both of them probably. The resurrections are teminally contradictory and would have the evangelists thrown into the gutter.

None of them would have been eyewitnesses to the accounts that occurred before or at the start of Christ's infancy. If there truly are errors there, these are just historical errors. The resurrection accounts are fine, there is nothing terminal about any contradictions (it is normal for some witnesses to get provide different details to an even, even sometimes get some details wrong... but the actual event DID happen - so the study goes that tcg posted earlier).

I have argued that Matthew reflects a Christian viewpoint foreign to a Jew. I have shown that he repeatedly misquotes the OT and can identify why - he uses the Septuagint. I can see no reason why he would use a translation that wasn't as Hebrew- speakers would have it. Why not use God's word rather than a Greek paraphrase of it even if (as you say) it is a reasonable interpretation?

(God's Word is Christ).

Perhaps that translation better fit (no ambiguity)? Perhaps that is the translation he was familiar with? Perhaps he was writing to people who were more familiar with that text?

I don't think it is - it is a quotemine out of context and (as we often find) the Sadducees should have jumped on him and at least argues that the quote is out of context and not as per the hebrew anyway.

Maybe there wasn't as big an issue back then surrounding the "masoratic" versus 'the Septuagint"?

On top of that, nobody but Matthew reports it (I'll check) Yep - like the Jews cursing themselves, nobody else has that passage. Nobody but Matthew knew of it? It's a smart quote, you'd think that Luke hearing it from some source) would put it in. In addition, the similarities in wording and order suggests that the synoptics were based on a common original (usually taken to be mark) so all that other stuff has to be additions...So the end is that Bible apologists can come up with all sorts of excuses, but what they are doing is not pointing to evidence that supports them but explaning away evidence that debunks them.

I'm not doing that. I have not seen evidence that debunks anything. Even for the issues under question, there is so much interpretation and 'what makes sense' (which is different from person to person). I can see multiple possible options for many questions - and if I can see more than one option, there are probably others I would not think about. Sometimes the actual reason someone does (or does not do) something, or the reason something did or did not happen, blows my mind. It would never have occurred to me. And this is stuff from two thousand years ago.

Matthew, as I said, is the one author I am not sure about. Barring some hard evidence (or confirmation from my Lord), that remains my position.

Bottom line - unbelievers will surely go with the evidence - Jesus could not have used the Septuagint to quote the Bible, and it isn't in the other Synoptics anyway, and matthew does this several times. They will not accept the Believer arguments for crediting the passage to Jesus or not agreeing that Matthew could not be a Jew.

Which quote are you referring to again?

The virgin will be with child... is not something Christ said. That is a quote from before his birth (in the flesh).

There is no issue with Zech 9:9. Here is the Septuagint (please keep in mind that the following have been translated into English, and just the translation from language to language causes word and phrasing differences):

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; proclaim it aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, the King is coming to thee, just, and a Saviour; he is meek and riding on an ass, and a young foal.


This is the translation of Zech 9:9 from chabad.org (which I assume is from the Masoratic text; but if it is from the Septuagint, then you have evidence that Jews don't have a problem with the Septuagint):

Be exceedingly happy, O daughter of Zion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Behold! Your king shall come to you. He is just and victorious; humble, and riding a donkey and a foal, the offspring of [one of] she-donkeys.


Even so, from Britannica.com:

Given that the language of much of the early Christian church was Greek, many early Christians relied on the Septuagint to locate the prophecies they claimed were fulfilled by Christ. Jews considered this a misuse of Holy Scripture and stopped using the Septuagint altogether;

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint

If they stopped using it, it means they WERE using it before that time.

It is unclear to what extent Alexandrian Jews accepted the authority of the Septuagint. Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were thought to have been in use among various Jewish sects at the time.[54]

Several factors led most Jews to abandon the Septuagint around the second century CE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint


Peace again.

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

Let's start a fresreply to wrap this response up

We see it again in the Blasphemy charge nonsense. Messiah did not claim to be a divine being pretty much identical with God. That would only be the view of Greek, Paulinist, Christians.
Yeah, because religious people never utter nonsense, right?

They utter it all the time, Tammy

Well there you go.

but the point here is that the interpretation of 'Messiah' and 'Son of God' as Blasphemy is not an understanding that the Jews of the time would have had (or so I gather from reading experts).

That's because it is not blasphemy. But since when does that stop people from leveling charges of blasphemy toward others?

This identification with a divine being was something that only (Later) Christians had.

I'm going to assume (perhaps mistakenly) that by this you mean that Christ was claiming to be God, Himself. He was not. The Son of God, yes, though. More than what they thought the Messiah was supposed to be, sure, and He had just finished telling them that He is from BEFORE Abraham.

I disagree that Matthew did not 'have it in' for the Jews as a whole. They all did. John has Jesus slamming and damning all the Jews,

(Tam) Well except of course for all the Jews He healed, that He had compassion upon, that He taught and fed, forgave and showed mercy toward, and of course except for His disciples (Jews and Samaritans <- both of whom were physical Israel), the apostles (who were all Jews), Mary, Martha (Jews)... all those He asked forgiveness for on the cross...

Right?

**

Question?

Observation, rather.

I meant that I had a question (which followed), lol. But we can go with your comment too:

Apart from the marked partiality of Jesus towards Gentiles

"I came only for the lost sheep of Israel."

Jews and Samaritans (both Israel, Jews from the two-tribe Kingdom of Judah; Samaritans from the 10-tribe Kingdom of Israel) are the ones He healed and had compassion upon.

It took great faith for Christ to grant the gentile woman her request.

So I'm not sure where you're getting partiality at all, much less marked partiality.

(reflecting the Pauline view that Gentiles were more worthy to be God's people than the Jews were)

What about the following (really all of Romans 11:11-28 disputes what you just said, but here are some highlights):

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and so all Israel will be saved.

Jesus was friendly, even loving, with the Jews around him. I think this was a question for the early Christians - why did Jesus go to the Jews at all?

The earliest Christians were Jews. Just saying'.

And the Messiah is a promise made to Israel. Who else would the Messiah have gone to first? The covenant was between Israel and God. Christ came first to the Jews, and the Samaritans (who are also Israel, from the ten 'lost' tribes), and then after being rejected (not by all, but by the nation), the invitation into the new covenant opened up also to the Gentiles.

It was pretty much part of the plan that the Jews would reject Jesus and he would be killed.

Because that is what they were going to choose to do (harden their hearts). But gentiles (including among those who profess to be Christian) do this as well... so who can boast?

Judas and the Sanhedrin were the mechanics of God's plan while Peter and Pilate were trying to stop it. Matthew sees that well enough when he slaps Peter down for saying that Jesus should not die. Matthew may not have known Hebrew but he knew Christian theology.

Matthew didn't do anything except record what he (or others) saw and heard.

This explains a thing that always puzzled me. the ambivalent representation of the disciples. They may have been his chosen companions, but they were weak, stupid and let him down, particularly Peter. His own family, his mother, were shown as being worth less than his followers. If Christians wrote this, it would explain why they were shown in this manner.

I don't think your logic follows. The RCC in particular pretty much venerates Peter, regardless of what he did or did not do. Not to mention their elevation of Mary.

They were just people with flaws.

( Tam)Do you suppose the prophets (at least some of whom were Jews) were also anti-Semitic (which appears to be what you are suggesting of the gospel writers)? Because the prophets speak some pretty harsh words for Jerusalem (and Samaria). Such as likening them to Oholah and Oholibah (both lewd women, adulteresses, prostitutes, unfaithful). What in the NT is out of character from the descriptions in the OT?

(Trans) A good question. Now Paul was in no doubt that the OT provided many quotes (or misquotes) that showed that God had turned his back on the Jews and made 'a people that are not my people' his people. The attitude was there even amongst non - Christians. But that didn't mean anti semitic, because neither Paul nor the OT prophets saw Jews being damned and their Children for ever while the Gentiles would be saved. The OT was wanting to see backsliders punished to bring them back to God, not damned forever, and the whole of Jewry with them, because they killed God. But that is what we see in Matthew.

Where do we see this in Matthew?

You are contradicting yourself. If Jesus (according to the gospels) was not claiming to be God, there is no basis for a blasphemy charge - which is what i was saying. The Sanhedrin of the time would never see messiahship as blasphemy, only a later Christian would, which shows that the gospels were invented by later Christians and cannot be an accurate record.

Jesus (in the gospels) has a partiality for Gentiles. He heals a centurion's son. He is talked around by a Syrio -phoenecian woman, your point of great faith proves my point - the gentiles had greater Faith than the Jews. He thinks samaritans are more worthy than Jews (and never mind the origins, Samaritans we not God's people, but Gentiles, as Jews saw them at the time) and we see Jesus declare how much more worthy the Gentiles he comes across are than Jews. Matthew's 'sent to lost tribes of Israel' was a puzzle - like 'jot and tittle' (and I think misunderstood), but I think that Matthew had to explain (nobody but Matthew has this, as I recall) why Jesus didn't go to the Gentiles in the first place. God should know the Jews would reject Jesus.

Your quotes from Paul also support my case - Judaism was the root, but the branches were broken off to be replaced by grafted in Gentiles, who had greater Faith. That view explains all the gentile partiality of the gospels. It is Pauline -Christian, not Jewish.

The mechanics of hardening the heart (aside from the Gentiles - with their greater Faith- softening Jesus' heart) either God doing it (Mark 4.15) or the Jews, God (unless your dogma is that he has no foresight) means that God knew the Jews would not listen so Jesus did not need to go to them.

There is doubt that Matthew's material where not reported by anyone else, is anything other than Matthew's invention. So your faith claim 'Matthew didn't do anything except record what he (or others) saw and heard.' is arguable, and is irrelevant to my point that the supposed heroes of the Gospels are the ones trying to foil God's plan, but the supposed villains are the ones making it happen. interesting indication of the Gospel -dogma not being thought through, eh? Mathew as I say, having thought it over a bit but the others not, and not of course recording what Matthew wrote, as Matthew has made it all up.

Even more irrelevant is the elevation of Peter (but only because the Vatican used him as the apostolic basis of the Papal authority) and Mary got slapped down and handed over to the Christians who henceforth owned her (John 19.17) and only because of the theological evolution through Papal dogma (to immaculate conception and Queen of heaven) is she anything but the sloughed skin of the incarnated God.

I told you where we see the damning of Jewry in Matthew 27.26, and the most infamous utterance in the whole Bible. And only Matthew's because the others who supposedly were there and heard it or heard it from those who were there, did not hear this. And, no, the 'they missed hearing it, forgot it or didn't think it important' excuse (should it be made by anyone) will not wash. Not only would this significant prophetic dogma be related through the Nazorenes (the 'campfire' apologetic) but Jesus would explain and reveal everything to them when he resurrected (end of Luke and start of Acts, plus the Pentecost) and there is no way they didn't know, no way they forgot and no way it was unimportant, never mind that the synoptics are supposed to derive from a common original, so anything singular has to be invented, right?

(Trans)even to having Jesus talk in parables so they would not understand and possibly be saved. The writers wanted to see the Jews damned, and Christians saw to it that they were if they did not convert (and didn't like them much even if they did), and this persecution is not vanished even today. Nice job Christians.
{Tam) That was religion, and the people who belonged to it (people who may have claimed to be Christian, though that does not mean that they WERE Christian). That wasn't anyone listening to Christ or following Him. Who did He force to believe in Him? Who did He kill or torture or persecute if they did not 'convert'? As I recall, He asked forgiveness for the people who did these things TO Him: "Father forgive them, they know not what they do"... and that is recorded in the gospels... He also said 'forgive and you will be forgiven'... and that is recorded in the gospels. He also said "BLESS those who curse you, do good to those who persecute you, love your enemies that you may be sons of your father in heaven "... and that is recorded in the gospels.

Nobody was Christian in Jesus' day and (assuming fsoa the gospel as true) Some of the gospels imply that the Jews were already earmarked to not be saved - they did not listen because God had made it so they couldnoty understand. They were pre -dammed for what ever damning followed death or the Last Days (whichever doctrine you pick)

You can't look at the religion that calls itself "Christian" or "Christianity" and expect it to show you who Christ is and what He was about. That religion is not from Him and does not know Him. The proof is there in the history books, a history that commits and even orders acts that are in direct contradiction with the commands of Christ. It's also there in the teachings - but they also teach a little truth to 'gloss over' the falsehood (because how else to mislead those who are seeking truth)?

Sorry, Tam, you will have to take it up with those Other Christians. I am not to blame for the DMC (Doctrinal Mainstream of the Church.)[/quote]

Since you are presenting it here, I am taking it up here (with you).



Peace again to you!
[/quote]

Ok, you are putting to me what exactly? That your brand of Christianity is not to be blamed for the misdeeds of Christianity (as recorded in the history books) but your take on it exempts Christianity, per se.? sorry, Tam, You do not to repackage Christianity and claim that it is not the Christianity that led to those abuses. Because the seeds are in the gospels. The blame for the death of Jesus is put on the Jews and Matthew underlines it (just as Mark on his own underlines the 'cup and bowl' as abolishing kashrut.) The gospels abolish not only Judaism, but want to abolish the Jews, and Matthew says so.

Now, you, Tam, may be a really mice person who would never wish harm (even though damnation) to any Jew, but that doesn't excuse Christianity, OR the Bible.
even if you have a different kind of Christianity that effectively denies and rejects all the anti - Judaism of the gospels. If have never swallowed the appeal to Ghost Bibles that exist only in the heads of the believers.

I'll reply to your #62 soonest

No peace, but a ceasefire.

[Difflugia]

Except that a young, sexually mature female was highly expected to be a virgin. (unless she was married)

And that's the sixty-four-dollar question. The two most common Jewish interpretations are that the young woman refers to the wife of Isaiah or a wife of Ahaz, either of which would be an almah, but not a virgin.

[tam]

Peace to you,

(I thought I would just respond to your response, for the sake of length, rather than copy/paste everything from earlier as well.)

You are contradicting yourself. If Jesus (according to the gospels) was not claiming to be God, there is no basis for a blasphemy charge - which is what i was saying.

I don't see where I am contradicting myself.

Christ was falsely accused of blasphemy (there was no blasphemy). He never claimed to be God (<- how would that even have gotten him anything more than an 'ah, okay... ah... I think I hear my wife calling me...").

The Sanhedrin of the time would never see messiahship as blasphemy, only a later Christian would, which shows that the gospels were invented by later Christians and cannot be an accurate record.

False accusation. They don't even lay out the details of the source of this blasphemy charge (because there is no blasphemy), but they sure did not like him pointing out their hypocrisy, their double standards, their abuses. There is no claim from Christ to be God. That is a later interpretation by men. It's not in the text. Therefore, the charge that later Christians had to have written the gospels because of this, is baseless. Christ never claimed to be God (YHWH), Himself. He always made a clear distinction between Himself and His Father. (there's a bunch of threads around the forum on this very topic).

Jesus (in the gospels) has a partiality for Gentiles. He heals a centurion's son. He is talked around by a Syrio -phoenecian woman, your point of great faith proves my point - the gentiles had greater Faith than the Jews.

Healing a centurion's son does not show partiality, unless he refused to heal a Jewish person's son. This is not the case, and healings of non-Israelite people (and their children) is very rare. On the other hand, healing Jews (and Samaritans) is common.

That gentiles woman did have great faith; as did the centurion.

He thinks samaritans are more worthy than Jews (and never mind the origins, Samaritans we not God's people, but Gentiles, as Jews saw them at the time)

What difference does it make how Jews saw them at the time? The Samaritans might have been regarded by Jews as Gentiles, but they are simply non-Jewish Israelites. Christ knew this. The Jews were wrong; Christ was right.

{You know this is history, right? That Samaritans are also Israel? The 12 tribes split after Solomon died; the Jews formed the two tribe southern Kingdom of Judah, keeping Jerusalem as their place of worship. The Samaritans formed the 10 tribe Northern Kingdom of Israel. The Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom, and shipped a bunch of the Samaritans off throughout the Assyrian realm to intermix with their other territories - as was the Assyrian habit. They did not do this with the poor and the peasants though, leaving them in place, but rather, they sent out the nobles, the educated, etc, to mix in with their other territories; they also did not split up families. Judah fell to the Babylonians shortly thereafter, but was permitted to return and rebuild the Temple. Take a look at what the Samaritan woman at the well said to Christ: Sir,” the woman replied, “You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where then will You get this living water? 12Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock?” }

ALL TWELVE tribes (except for one that lost its place, but Joseph gets a double portion) are listed in Revelation as having 12 000 reserved from each tribe (these are those from physical Israel who are guaranteed to reign with Christ in His Kingdom for at least a thousand years). On top of that, ALL Israel will be saved. Not just the Jewish portion. And not just Gentiles either.

and we see Jesus declare how much more worthy the Gentiles he comes across are than Jews.

Actually, we see him declare that the one woman had great faith, and that the centurion (who might have been a Samaritan) had greater faith than He had seen in Israel (if I am remembering correctly).

You're giving a sinister motive to this, but these are just statements about what happened.

Matthew's 'sent to lost tribes of Israel' was a puzzle - like 'jot and tittle' (and I think misunderstood), but I think that Matthew had to explain (nobody but Matthew has this, as I recall) why Jesus didn't go to the Gentiles in the first place. God should know the Jews would reject Jesus.

It is not 'lost tribes of Israel'; it is 'lost sheep of Israel'.

As far as I know, no one is getting 'lost ten tribes' out of anything Matthew said.

Your quotes from Paul also support my case - Judaism was the root, but the branches were broken off to be replaced by grafted in Gentiles, who had greater Faith. That view explains all the gentile partiality of the gospels. It is Pauline -Christian, not Jewish.

SOME branches were broken off (not all branches); so that Gentiles could be grafted in. Those natural branches can also be grafted back in, and Paul finishes his talk with the truth that ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED.

The mechanics of hardening the heart (aside from the Gentiles - with their greater Faith- softening Jesus' heart) either God doing it (Mark 4.15) or the Jews, God (unless your dogma is that he has no foresight) means that God knew the Jews would not listen so Jesus did not need to go to them.

Except for the promises made to Abraham. Except for all those who DID listen (the apostles, all the earliest disciples...).

There is doubt that Matthew's material where not reported by anyone else, is anything other than Matthew's invention. So your faith claim 'Matthew didn't do anything except record what he (or others) saw and heard.' is arguable, and is irrelevant to my point that the supposed heroes of the Gospels are the ones trying to foil God's plan, but the supposed villains are the ones making it happen. interesting indication of the Gospel -dogma not being thought through, eh?

I would argue that is evidence against it being 'made up'. (then that the problem is more in a lack of understanding on the part of the reader)

I told you where we see the damning of Jewry in Matthew 27.26, and the most infamous utterance in the whole Bible.

God does not punish the sons for the sins of the fathers. Nor would Jews not present (or even yet born) be punished for something they never said or did. What license would it have given any Christian anywhere to disobey Christ's instructions on how to treat even an enemy; or to disregard His example on forgiveness and asking forgiveness for those who had persecuted him, executed him, beat and tortured him? (I see that I covered this below...)

(Trans)even to having Jesus talk in parables so they would not understand and possibly be saved. The writers wanted to see the Jews damned, and Christians saw to it that they were if they did not convert (and didn't like them much even if they did), and this persecution is not vanished even today. Nice job Christians.
{Tam) That was religion, and the people who belonged to it (people who may have claimed to be Christian, though that does not mean that they WERE Christian). That wasn't anyone listening to Christ or following Him. Who did He force to believe in Him? Who did He kill or torture or persecute if they did not 'convert'? As I recall, He asked forgiveness for the people who did these things TO Him: "Father forgive them, they know not what they do"... and that is recorded in the gospels... He also said 'forgive and you will be forgiven'... and that is recorded in the gospels. He also said "BLESS those who curse you, do good to those who persecute you, love your enemies that you may be sons of your father in heaven "... and that is recorded in the gospels.

Nobody was Christian in Jesus' day and (assuming fsoa the gospel as true) Some of the gospels imply that the Jews were already earmarked to not be saved - they did not listen because God had made it so they couldnoty understand. They were pre -dammed for what ever damning followed death or the Last Days (whichever doctrine you pick)

Did you just repeat your position instead of addressing what I said?

And all Israel will be saved.

You can't look at the religion that calls itself "Christian" or "Christianity" and expect it to show you who Christ is and what He was about. That religion is not from Him and does not know Him. The proof is there in the history books, a history that commits and even orders acts that are in direct contradiction with the commands of Christ. It's also there in the teachings - but they also teach a little truth to 'gloss over' the falsehood (because how else to mislead those who are seeking truth)?

Sorry, Tam, you will have to take it up with those Other Christians. I am not to blame for the DMC (Doctrinal Mainstream of the Church.)

Since you are presenting it here, I am taking it up here (with you).



Peace again to you!

Ok, you are putting to me what exactly?

Exactly what I said.

You cannot look at the religion and expect it to show you Christ (who He is, what He is about). The religion (all of the religion) is not from Him. You just have to look at the horrendous things it has done (some of which you have outlined) to see where IT is not listening to Christ.

That your brand of Christianity is not to be blamed for the misdeeds of Christianity (as recorded in the history books) but your take on it exempts Christianity, per se.?

I don't have a 'brand' of "Christianity" (the religion). I have never joined any sect.

We are supposed to be worshiping in spirit and in truth.

sorry, Tam, You do not to repackage Christianity and claim that it is not the Christianity that led to those abuses. Because the seeds are in the gospels. The blame for the death of Jesus is put on the Jews and Matthew underlines it (just as Mark on his own underlines the 'cup and bowl' as abolishing kashrut.) The gospels abolish not only Judaism, but want to abolish the Jews, and Matthew says so.

Matthew does not say so (about abolishing the Jews). But religion? Sure... but here is the kicker: Christ did not institute a new religion (by which I mean institutionalized organized religion, with creeds, and laws, etc.)

We are to worship NOW (and starting then) in spirit and in truth (through Christ).

The new covenant is mediated by Christ. There is no religion involved.

It IS: man <-> Christ <-> God

It is NOT: man <-> religion <-> Christ <-> God.

Now, you, Tam, may be a really mice person who would never wish harm (even though damnation) to any Jew, but that doesn't excuse Christianity, OR the Bible.
even if you have a different kind of Christianity that effectively denies and rejects all the anti - Judaism of the gospels. If have never swallowed the appeal to Ghost Bibles that exist only in the heads of the believers.

The NT makes clear that all Israel will be saved. If religious leaders/religion chose to disregard that, that is on them. Not on Christ. Not even on Matthew, since Christ's commands are recorded in Matthew as well.

I'm just following Christ, and His Word, and His commands. There is no room for any Christian to do the kinds of things that you are talking about.

I'll reply to your #62 soonest

No worries. I probably won't get back to it for a while myself.

No peace, but a ceasefire.

I appreciate what you are willing to give : )

Peace still to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

(I thought I would just respond to your response, for the sake of length, rather than copy/paste everything from earlier as well.)

You are contradicting yourself. If Jesus (according to the gospels) was not claiming to be God, there is no basis for a blasphemy charge - which is what i was saying.

I don't see where I am contradicting myself.

Christ was falsely accused of blasphemy (there was no blasphemy). He never claimed to be God (<- how would that even have gotten him anything more than an 'ah, okay... ah... I think I hear my wife calling me...").

The Sanhedrin of the time would never see messiahship as blasphemy, only a later Christian would, which shows that the gospels were invented by later Christians and cannot be an accurate record.

False accusation. They don't even lay out the details of the source of this blasphemy charge (because there is no blasphemy), but they sure did not like him pointing out their hypocrisy, their double standards, their abuses. There is no claim from Christ to be God. That is a later interpretation by men. It's not in the text. Therefore, the charge that later Christians had to have written the gospels because of this, is baseless. Christ never claimed to be God (YHWH), Himself. He always made a clear distinction between Himself and His Father. (there's a bunch of threads around the forum on this very topic).

Jesus (in the gospels) has a partiality for Gentiles. He heals a centurion's son. He is talked around by a Syrio -phoenecian woman, your point of great faith proves my point - the gentiles had greater Faith than the Jews.

Healing a centurion's son does not show partiality, unless he refused to heal a Jewish person's son. This is not the case, and healings of non-Israelite people (and their children) is very rare. On the other hand, healing Jews (and Samaritans) is common.

That gentiles woman did have great faith; as did the centurion.

He thinks samaritans are more worthy than Jews (and never mind the origins, Samaritans we not God's people, but Gentiles, as Jews saw them at the time)

What difference does it make how Jews saw them at the time? The Samaritans might have been regarded by Jews as Gentiles, but they are simply non-Jewish Israelites. Christ knew this. The Jews were wrong; Christ was right.

{You know this is history, right? That Samaritans are also Israel? The 12 tribes split after Solomon died; the Jews formed the two tribe southern Kingdom of Judah, keeping Jerusalem as their place of worship. The Samaritans formed the 10 tribe Northern Kingdom of Israel. The Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom, and shipped a bunch of the Samaritans off throughout the Assyrian realm to intermix with their other territories - as was the Assyrian habit. They did not do this with the poor and the peasants though, leaving them in place, but rather, they sent out the nobles, the educated, etc, to mix in with their other territories; they also did not split up families. Judah fell to the Babylonians shortly thereafter, but was permitted to return and rebuild the Temple. Take a look at what the Samaritan woman at the well said to Christ: Sir,” the woman replied, “You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where then will You get this living water? 12Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock?” }

ALL TWELVE tribes (except for one that lost its place, but Joseph gets a double portion) are listed in Revelation as having 12 000 reserved from each tribe (these are those from physical Israel who are guaranteed to reign with Christ in His Kingdom for at least a thousand years). On top of that, ALL Israel will be saved. Not just the Jewish portion. And not just Gentiles either.

and we see Jesus declare how much more worthy the Gentiles he comes across are than Jews.

Actually, we see him declare that the one woman had great faith, and that the centurion (who might have been a Samaritan) had greater faith than He had seen in Israel (if I am remembering correctly).

You're giving a sinister motive to this, but these are just statements about what happened.

Matthew's 'sent to lost tribes of Israel' was a puzzle - like 'jot and tittle' (and I think misunderstood), but I think that Matthew had to explain (nobody but Matthew has this, as I recall) why Jesus didn't go to the Gentiles in the first place. God should know the Jews would reject Jesus.

It is not 'lost tribes of Israel'; it is 'lost sheep of Israel'.

As far as I know, no one is getting 'lost ten tribes' out of anything Matthew said.

Your quotes from Paul also support my case - Judaism was the root, but the branches were broken off to be replaced by grafted in Gentiles, who had greater Faith. That view explains all the gentile partiality of the gospels. It is Pauline -Christian, not Jewish.

SOME branches were broken off (not all branches); so that Gentiles could be grafted in. Those natural branches can also be grafted back in, and Paul finishes his talk with the truth that ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED.

The mechanics of hardening the heart (aside from the Gentiles - with their greater Faith- softening Jesus' heart) either God doing it (Mark 4.15) or the Jews, God (unless your dogma is that he has no foresight) means that God knew the Jews would not listen so Jesus did not need to go to them.

Except for the promises made to Abraham. Except for all those who DID listen (the apostles, all the earliest disciples...).

There is doubt that Matthew's material where not reported by anyone else, is anything other than Matthew's invention. So your faith claim 'Matthew didn't do anything except record what he (or others) saw and heard.' is arguable, and is irrelevant to my point that the supposed heroes of the Gospels are the ones trying to foil God's plan, but the supposed villains are the ones making it happen. interesting indication of the Gospel -dogma not being thought through, eh?

I would argue that is evidence against it being 'made up'. (then that the problem is more in a lack of understanding on the part of the reader)

I told you where we see the damning of Jewry in Matthew 27.26, and the most infamous utterance in the whole Bible.

God does not punish the sons for the sins of the fathers. Nor would Jews not present (or even yet born) be punished for something they never said or did. What license would it have given any Christian anywhere to disobey Christ's instructions on how to treat even an enemy; or to disregard His example on forgiveness and asking forgiveness for those who had persecuted him, executed him, beat and tortured him? (I see that I covered this below...)

(Trans)even to having Jesus talk in parables so they would not understand and possibly be saved. The writers wanted to see the Jews damned, and Christians saw to it that they were if they did not convert (and didn't like them much even if they did), and this persecution is not vanished even today. Nice job Christians.
{Tam) That was religion, and the people who belonged to it (people who may have claimed to be Christian, though that does not mean that they WERE Christian). That wasn't anyone listening to Christ or following Him. Who did He force to believe in Him? Who did He kill or torture or persecute if they did not 'convert'? As I recall, He asked forgiveness for the people who did these things TO Him: "Father forgive them, they know not what they do"... and that is recorded in the gospels... He also said 'forgive and you will be forgiven'... and that is recorded in the gospels. He also said "BLESS those who curse you, do good to those who persecute you, love your enemies that you may be sons of your father in heaven "... and that is recorded in the gospels.

Nobody was Christian in Jesus' day and (assuming fsoa the gospel as true) Some of the gospels imply that the Jews were already earmarked to not be saved - they did not listen because God had made it so they couldnoty understand. They were pre -dammed for what ever damning followed death or the Last Days (whichever doctrine you pick)

Did you just repeat your position instead of addressing what I said?

And all Israel will be saved.

You can't look at the religion that calls itself "Christian" or "Christianity" and expect it to show you who Christ is and what He was about. That religion is not from Him and does not know Him. The proof is there in the history books, a history that commits and even orders acts that are in direct contradiction with the commands of Christ. It's also there in the teachings - but they also teach a little truth to 'gloss over' the falsehood (because how else to mislead those who are seeking truth)?

Sorry, Tam, you will have to take it up with those Other Christians. I am not to blame for the DMC (Doctrinal Mainstream of the Church.)

Since you are presenting it here, I am taking it up here (with you).



Peace again to you!

Ok, you are putting to me what exactly?

Exactly what I said.

You cannot look at the religion and expect it to show you Christ (who He is, what He is about). The religion (all of the religion) is not from Him. You just have to look at the horrendous things it has done (some of which you have outlined) to see where IT is not listening to Christ.

That your brand of Christianity is not to be blamed for the misdeeds of Christianity (as recorded in the history books) but your take on it exempts Christianity, per se.?

I don't have a 'brand' of "Christianity" (the religion). I have never joined any sect.

We are supposed to be worshiping in spirit and in truth.

sorry, Tam, You do not to repackage Christianity and claim that it is not the Christianity that led to those abuses. Because the seeds are in the gospels. The blame for the death of Jesus is put on the Jews and Matthew underlines it (just as Mark on his own underlines the 'cup and bowl' as abolishing kashrut.) The gospels abolish not only Judaism, but want to abolish the Jews, and Matthew says so.

Matthew does not say so (about abolishing the Jews). But religion? Sure... but here is the kicker: Christ did not institute a new religion (by which I mean institutionalized organized religion, with creeds, and laws, etc.)

We are to worship NOW (and starting then) in spirit and in truth (through Christ).

The new covenant is mediated by Christ. There is no religion involved.

It IS: man <-> Christ <-> God

It is NOT: man <-> religion <-> Christ <-> God.

Now, you, Tam, may be a really mice person who would never wish harm (even though damnation) to any Jew, but that doesn't excuse Christianity, OR the Bible.
even if you have a different kind of Christianity that effectively denies and rejects all the anti - Judaism of the gospels. If have never swallowed the appeal to Ghost Bibles that exist only in the heads of the believers.

The NT makes clear that all Israel will be saved. If religious leaders/religion chose to disregard that, that is on them. Not on Christ. Not even on Matthew, since Christ's commands are recorded in Matthew as well.

I'm just following Christ, and His Word, and His commands. There is no room for any Christian to do the kinds of things that you are talking about.

I'll reply to your #62 soonest

No worries. I probably won't get back to it for a while myself.

No peace, but a ceasefire.

I appreciate what you are willing to give : )

Peace still to you.

Of course it's a blasphemy charge. Mathew 26 65-6. (Mark 14 64 (Luke avoids the term but the meaning is there). John has Pilate imply that their charge is not a matter for him and they should try him according to Jewish reliigious Law, whcih of course won't do as then ...as a Blasphemer!!

...he should be stoned...


... not crucified (it is not true that the Sanhedrin could not people to death fro Blasphemy) but (to their discopmfort) he was crucified not stoned - but it has to be the Jews who got the Romans to do that.

By your brand of Christianity I mean whatever type of Christianity you believe, whether it is is a denomination of sect or just you own personal beliefs.It makes no difference to the fact that MainstrEam Christianity does have that whole package of Dogma (can't recall just what) and never mind that you personally don't share their views. Nobody (from what you say) shares yours. So effectively it seems that your arguments are irrelevant because you are not arguing the mainstream of Christian Dogma at all. Or are you?

Look, it's like this - if someone parachuted in on a debate about Christianity and denied that Jesus dismissed Kosher food Laws and we pointed to Mark 7.19 and he said "I'm Jewish so I reject anything in the NT that conflicts with my beliefs".

We'd say 'then you have no place in the debate, here". Whatever your personal beliefs, Tammy, you cannot cherry -pick which bits of the NT you believe or don't (1) and expect us to cherry pick along with you.

We Goddless do Scripture the credit of taking what it says as what it says, and not what we would prefer it to say.

And what it says is that Matthew (alone) has the Jews getting Jesus killed, Pilate saying it's their fault, not his, and the Jews saying it's their fault, and the fault of all Jews after them, and if you don't understand that as the source and basis (or rationale at least) of all Christian anti - semitism thereafter, then you have something to learn.

For one thing, your classing samaritans as Jews is your personal view or interpretation. That was not the view of Jews and is evidently not the view of the gospel writers, as the tale of the 7 lepers has the Samaritan praise Jesus and Jesus says: 'were not all 7 healed?' the point being, the Samaritan is more Faith-worthy than the Jews, just as the syrio phoenecian woman has (as you said) great Faith and so did the Centurion. As Jesus said, nowhere is Israel have I found such faith'. That's the point and makes sense of all these odd passages.

Here Matthew 8. 9 "For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Kjv)
This refers to the Centurion (also in Luke (2) and is quite clear - the Gentile represents all the gentiles from east and west (i.e Christians) and the Jews will be cast into the outer darkness. ably assisted by the Christians as soon as they got temporal power. The venom and Hatred of Jews was there, even when Rome was persecuting the Jesus -believers.

And another point there (each passage has a dozen clues as to what is said, why it is said and thus who wrote it, and still, nobody seems to have cottoned on. The Roman of course can't have Christian faith in Jesus as the risen messiah (which for Paul is the one that saves) but only as a Jewish magician that can heal people. The faith he has is a pagan faith in magicians and conjurers, not in God or his messiah. It is another example of Christian anachronism. And we find this again in the synoptics where the Roman soldier at the cross says 'Truly,this man was the son of God', which even in the Jewish sense made no part of a Roman soldiers belief. Luke sees this by changing the passage to 'surely this man was innocent!' which is very weak, but better than anachronistic.

P.s I hadn't forgotten you Other post but really it has a lot of irrelevance. It makes no difference whether the Alexandrian Jews accepted the Septuagint or not. Jesus would not have quotes the Greek reading to the Sadducees when they both knew the Hebrew version. The Sadducees because they were experts in the Jewish scriptures and jesus because as a kid, he lectured them on it.

Nor does it matter whether the 'virgin' passage was written before Jesus (it actually was) or after. What matters is that only a Greek who could not read Hebrew and did not understand it as a Jew would, could have taken it to be a prophecy of the virgin birth.
That's even without getting onto the nativities being false and Mark and John knowing nothing about them. But I'll scan the rest of your post to see whether there's anything.

(1) Obviously I haven't learned what your personal beliefs and Dogmas are, but the point is; if they alter what the Bible is (mainstream) interpreted as saying, then they are irrelevant in the discussion here; if they do not alter what the Bible is saying, then they make no difference to the discussion.

(2) not in Mark, which was a puzzle until I realized;- it must be Q material. Of which there is not a little. John has it but there is another explanation - the 'floating story', see the healing of the blind man, the Paralytic and - test case - the woman taken in adultery, plus, (evidently) all the post resurrection -text, and I suspect, the walking on water - which is why it is not in Luke.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #66]

By your brand of Christianity I mean whatever type of Christianity you believe, whether it is is a denomination of sect or just you own personal beliefs.It makes no difference to the fact that MainstrEam Christianity does have that whole package of Dogma (can't recall just what) and never mind that you personally don't share their views. Nobody (from what you say) shares yours. So effectively it seems that your arguments are irrelevant because you are not arguing the mainstream of Christian Dogma at all. Or are you?

Now why would that make an argument irrelevant? Again, you give far more credence to what that religion says than I do. Why do you do that? You can (or should be able to) see for yourself that these religions coming up with these doctrines were clearly not obeying Christ in all these atrocities that they were committing. Yet you think they had a clue when it came to interpretation?

Arguments stand or fall on their own merit. Otherwise it is just an appeal to authority.

Look, it's like this - if soeone parachuted in on a debate about Christianity and denied that Jesus dismissed Kosher food Laws and we pointed to Mark 7.19 and he said "I'm Jewish so I reject anything in the NT that conflicts with my beleifs".

We'd say 'then you have no place in the debate, here". Whatever your personal beliefs, Tammy, you cannot cherry -pick which bits of the NT you believe or don't (1) and expect us to cherry pick along with you.

Transponder, I am the one pointing out "Mark 7.19" and you are the one rejecting anything that conflicts with "the dogma of mainstream Christianity".

We Goddless do Scripture the credit of taking what it says as what it says, and not what we would prefer it to say.

Whatever you choose to call yourself, you are not taking what Scripture says as what it says. You are accepting "the dogma (and interpretation) of mainstream Christianity", regardless of whether that dogma is truly supported by scripture or not.

And what it says is that Matthew (alone) has the Jews getting Jesus killed, Pilate saying it's their fault, not his, and the Jews saying it's their fault, and the fault of all Jews after them, and if you don't understand that as the source and basis (or rationale at least) of all Chirtian anti -semitism thereafter, then you have something to learn.

From Mark

Now the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were scheming to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him. 2 “But not during the festival,” they said, “or the people may riot.” Mark 14:1-2

The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. Mark 14: 55

They all condemned him as worthy of death. 65 Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him. Mark 14:64-65

Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, made their plans. So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate. Mark 15:1

Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, 10 knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.12 “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them. 13 “Crucify him!” they shouted. 14 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!” Mark 15:9-14

From Luke:

Now the Festival of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2 and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. Luke 22:1-2

Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.” 3 So Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” “You have said so,” Jesus replied. 4 Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.” Luke 23:1-4

Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.” [17] [a] 18 But the whole crowd shouted, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!” 19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.) 20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” 22 For the third time he spoke to them: “Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.” 23 But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided to grant their demand. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will. Luke 23: 13-25

From John.

Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews gathered there, “Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him.” 5 When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!” 6 As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!” But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”7 The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” 8 When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9 and he went back inside the palace. “Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10 “Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” 12 From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.” John 19: 4-12


All four gospels have Pilate finding no basis for a charge and trying to release Christ. All four gospels have the chief priests and officials, elders, etc, seeking to kill Christ, handing him over to BE killed, calling out for him to be crucified. The only thing Matthew has that the other three do not is the call, 'his blood be on us and our children'. For that, see previous remarks in the previous post. Either way, the accounts are the same. The chief priests and elders, Sanhedrin, etc, plotted to kill Christ, leveled false charges against Him, handed Him over to be executed, refused to have him released (even though Pilate tried to have him released), called out for Him to be crucified.

The chief priests/elders/sanhedrin/officials were guilty of a greater sin. (note, for them to be guilty of a greater sin, Pilate having him executed must still have been a sin)

(1) Obviously I haven't learned what your personal beliefs and Dogmas are, but the point is; if they alter what the Bible is (mainstream) interpreted as saying, then they are irrelevant in the discussion here; if they do not alter what the Bible is saying, then they make no difference to the discussion.

These are two very different statements:

if they alter what the Bible is (mainstream) interpreted as saying

if they do not alter what the Bible is saying


Just because a religion has created mainstream doctrines, does not mean those doctrines are true. The fact that "Christendom" (the religion) is a house divided should tell you that. The fact that some people and a religion (mis)used words to justify the things they did for their own gain or for their own evil desires (such as to maintain their power) - in direct conflict and disobedience to the commands of Christ - does not mean that those events or words being misused were fabricated. If you can see the corruption in religious leaders today, why do you think it would have been different back then? Was it not the poor and the downtrodden common Jewish people that Christ had compassion upon, whom He healed? The sinners being judged by the self-righteous leaders? Sound familiar to anything today? Why choose to give their ideas and interpretations any credence?


Agree or disagree, perhaps there is some food for thought in that.



Peace again to you!

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #66]

For one thing, your classing samaritans as Jews is your personal view or interpretation. That was not the view of Jews and is evidently not the view of the gospel writers, as the tale of the 7 lepers has the Samaritan praise Jesus and Jesus says: 'were not all 7 healed?' the point being, the Samaritan is more Faith-worthy than the Jews, just as the syrio phoenecian woman has (as you said) great Faith and so did the Centurion. As Jesus said, nowhere is Israel have I found such faith'. That's the point and makes sense of all these odd passages.

A- Please note that I did not classify Samaritans as Jews. Samaritans are not Jews. Samaritans are ten portions of Israel. Jews are two portions of Israel. The modern habit of equating Jew and Israel, as if Jews are all that comprise Israel has led to this misunderstanding.

B - this is not my personal view. This is history. The division of Israel into two camps after Solomon died is history. The woman at the well called Jacob (Israel) their father, because Samaritans are also Israel, descended from the 10 tribe Kingdom of Israel, descended from Jacob (Israel). Jews reject Samaritans as Israel for various reasons, but that does not change the fact. Samaritans are not JEWS. But they are ISRAEL, and ISRAEL consists of 12 tribes. Not just Judah and Benjamin from whom the Jews of that day were descended.

Even Paul said that he was a Jew according to the flesh, descended from the tribe of Benjamin (Philippians 3:5). That goes all the way back to the division of Israel into two kingdoms (way back in the OT).

After the brief period of the united kingdom of Israel, Benjamin became part of the southern Kingdom of Judah following the split into two kingdoms. After the destruction of the northern kingdom, Benjamin was fully absorbed into the southern kingdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Benjamin

Benjamin, according to biblical tradition, one of the 12 tribes that constituted the people of Israel, and one of the two tribes (along with Judah) that later became the Jewish people. The tribe was named after the younger of two children born to Jacob (also called Israel) and his second wife, Rachel.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Benjamin-Hebrew-tribe

C - the account of the good Samaritan has deeper meaning BECAUSE Jews and Samaritans are brothers; both are Israel. Even if the one brother rejected the other.



Peace again to you!

[Inquirer]

Matthew may be the earliest of the three Gospels

Three? Even in the cannon there are four. And there are many that are outside of the cannon. Of course, who cares about the number of tales about Jesus which exist? The amount is meaningless if one desires to understand reality. Oddly, that isn't the priority of some.


Tcg

You claim to understand reality? Please share your insights with us! What is realty? How did you come to understand it?

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #66]

For one thing, your classing samaritans as Jews is your personal view or interpretation. That was not the view of Jews and is evidently not the view of the gospel writers, as the tale of the 7 lepers has the Samaritan praise Jesus and Jesus says: 'were not all 7 healed?' the point being, the Samaritan is more Faith-worthy than the Jews, just as the syrio phoenecian woman has (as you said) great Faith and so did the Centurion. As Jesus said, nowhere is Israel have I found such faith'. That's the point and makes sense of all these odd passages.

A- Please note that I did not classify Samaritans as Jews. Samaritans are not Jews. Samaritans are ten portions of Israel. Jews are two portions of Israel. The modern habit of equating Jew and Israel, as if Jews are all that comprise Israel has led to this misunderstanding.

B - this is not my personal view. This is history. The division of Israel into two camps after Solomon died is history. The woman at the well called Jacob (Israel) their father, because Samaritans are also Israel, descended from the 10 tribe Kingdom of Israel, descended from Jacob (Israel). Jews reject Samaritans as Israel for various reasons, but that does not change the fact. Samaritans are not JEWS. But they are ISRAEL, and ISRAEL consists of 12 tribes. Not just Judah and Benjamin from whom the Jews of that day were descended.

Even Paul said that he was a Jew according to the flesh, descended from the tribe of Benjamin (Philippians 3:5). That goes all the way back to the division of Israel into two kingdoms (way back in the OT).

After the brief period of the united kingdom of Israel, Benjamin became part of the southern Kingdom of Judah following the split into two kingdoms. After the destruction of the northern kingdom, Benjamin was fully absorbed into the southern kingdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Benjamin

Benjamin, according to biblical tradition, one of the 12 tribes that constituted the people of Israel, and one of the two tribes (along with Judah) that later became the Jewish people. The tribe was named after the younger of two children born to Jacob (also called Israel) and his second wife, Rachel.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Benjamin-Hebrew-tribe

C - the account of the good Samaritan has deeper meaning BECAUSE Jews and Samaritans are brothers; both are Israel. Even if the one brother rejected the other.



Peace again to you!

I understand all that. I understand the common origins of the Jews and Samaritans. It is irrelevant. The Edomites had become Jews, but they were largely considered not really Jews. Samaritans did not recognise the Temple as the place of worship and that made them Not Jews. That was good enough for the gospel -writers, and (whatever you say, and I can already hear the denial) that the Gospels treat the Samaritans as more faithful (like the gentiles) than your average Jews, makes it clear to me that the evangelists saw the Samaritans as proxy gentiles to make dogmatic Paulinist points about Gentiles being more worthy than the Jews, that is, when there wasn't a handy Roman centurion around.

I see no need to delve for Deeper meaning than the one that's as plain as a pikestaff - once it has been pointed out. It's not easy at first. Though I do recall that (in my religion - class as a kid) the Samaritan was presented as a metaphor for Christians being the only ones to thank god out of all the other religions. But I reckon once the Plot has been unravelled, the puzzles explained and the evidence that the perfect alibi wasn't so perfect, sir, they will see it "Of course! That has got to be the explanation." I have Faith.