Who was the author of Matthew?

[jd01]

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

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

John self identifies himself in the Gospel.

They only Johns I can find in mentioned in gospel John are John the Baptist and John the father of Simon Peter. Where is the self-identification you are referring to?
Tcg

The author self-identifies himself as the Beloved Disciple. There is a universal agreement in the Early Church that a certain John wrote the Gospel. Most later assumed it was John the Disciple but Papias is careful to identify John, the Elder and internal evidence suggests he was the author. I go over the details in my book.

A good argument has been made that the Beloved Disciple was Lazarus. Yes, the author identifies himself as the Beloved Disciple. He does NOT self-identify as John. To claim to know what the Early Church universally agreed on is quite a stretch. It wouldn't be possible to even know everyone who was a part of the Early Church much less what they did or did not agree on.


Tcg

Yes, and (as my Lord showed me) Lazarus is indeed identified in that gospel as the one He loved. This makes the author of "John" an eyewitness, even if most won't accept that. Just not the eyewitness that has been traditionally taught.

Luke is not an eyewitness though (as has been said in this thread). Nor does he ever claim to be an eyewitness. He claims to have investigated and then written an orderly report from what others who were eyewitnesses had handed down to them.

If Mark is a companion (or son... 1Peter 5:13) of Peter, then Mark probably got most of his information from Peter; though if Mark is Peter's actual son, he may have witnessed a few things himself.

Matthew is the one I am not sure about. I have that one in a "probably Levi" category.



Peace again to you!

At one time I was half convinced that the writer of 'John' had an eyewitness account, even though the writer edited it heavily to add his own preaching and arguments put into Jesus' mouth.

Just bolding the opinion part of your statement.

The sending of a message to Jesus in Peraea, Jesus waiting 2 days before setting out, the exchanges between Jesus and Lazarus' sisters all sounded rather detailed, though what it says is that the whole thing was a faked miracle to impress Jesus' followers.

And again...

But the problem is that it's like Matthew Mark and Luke have never heard of it. I wondered whether they could have omitted it because it looks a fake, but that's not what they do , normally. So I'm leaning to the view that 'John' made the whole thing up.

Or maybe Matthew, Mark and Luke did not want to include a story that would put Lazarus back in the cross-hairs of those who were seeking to silence or kill him. Maybe that account was left for Lazarus to write (or not) as he chose.

But Matthew - at the risk of repeating myself, is demonstrably not a follower of Jesus or even a Jew. He shows with the Virgin misreading,

How do you know that is a misreading when the word translated to 'young woman' can also include a virgin?

the two Donkey mistake,

That could also be later a scribal/copyist/translation error. A colt of a donkey, versus, a colt and a donkey.

the Babes and suckling misread

Not sure what you are referring to here, sorry.

and the misread of Rachel's children to get a prophecy on his invented nativity massacre out of it,

Not sure how that's a misread, but I do know that some things can also be prophecy, even if they don't appear that way at first glance. Remember that Christ had to open the apostles' minds to understand the scriptures. Sometimes I have not seen the connection either... BUT... my Lord has opened my mind to see something written in the OT that I had no idea was applying to Him. Not until He showed it to me.

that he had to read his OT material in Greek.

Is that because you think those errors are in a greek translation that Matthew then copied?

Add to that the "Interpretation" of King of the Jews as prophesied messiah rather than pretender to the throne. Given that Herod sees the new born king as a political threat, his rushing to scripture and assurances that he only wishes to Worship the babe shows that in addition to being a Greek, he is also a Christian Greek, as that's how he interprets 'Messiah' (Christ).

Mark, Luke and "John" also have the placard on the cross above Christ as "King of the Jews".

And he rather had it in for the Jews, too. I don't know who he was, but I reckon I know what he was.

His brothers (in Christ) would have been Jews. Christ was also Jewish. Without knowing exactly what you are talking about, I will suggest to you that it has nothing to do with 'having it in for the Jews', rather than having something against those Jews who rejected Christ (specifically the Pharisees and leaders that first persecuted Christ, and then also persecuted those Jews who followed/belonged/were faithful to Christ.)


Peace again to you!

[Avoice]

[Replying to jd01 in post #0]

They were written anonymously, The church titled them and gave them the names. They even went further. Yes, these imaginary authors were also called St. Mathew, St. Mark …

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

John self identifies himself in the Gospel.

They only Johns I can find in mentioned in gospel John are John the Baptist and John the father of Simon Peter. Where is the self-identification you are referring to?
Tcg

The author self-identifies himself as the Beloved Disciple. There is a universal agreement in the Early Church that a certain John wrote the Gospel. Most later assumed it was John the Disciple but Papias is careful to identify John, the Elder and internal evidence suggests he was the author. I go over the details in my book.

A good argument has been made that the Beloved Disciple was Lazarus. Yes, the author identifies himself as the Beloved Disciple. He does NOT self-identify as John. To claim to know what the Early Church universally agreed on is quite a stretch. It wouldn't be possible to even know everyone who was a part of the Early Church much less what they did or did not agree on.


Tcg

Yes, and (as my Lord showed me) Lazarus is indeed identified in that gospel as the one He loved. This makes the author of "John" an eyewitness, even if most won't accept that. Just not the eyewitness that has been traditionally taught.

Luke is not an eyewitness though (as has been said in this thread). Nor does he ever claim to be an eyewitness. He claims to have investigated and then written an orderly report from what others who were eyewitnesses had handed down to them.

If Mark is a companion (or son... 1Peter 5:13) of Peter, then Mark probably got most of his information from Peter; though if Mark is Peter's actual son, he may have witnessed a few things himself.

Matthew is the one I am not sure about. I have that one in a "probably Levi" category.



Peace again to you!

At one time I was half convinced that the writer of 'John' had an eyewitness account, even though the writer edited it heavily to add his own preaching and arguments put into Jesus' mouth.

Just bolding the opinion part of your statement.

The sending of a message to Jesus in Peraea, Jesus waiting 2 days before setting out, the exchanges between Jesus and Lazarus' sisters all sounded rather detailed, though what it says is that the whole thing was a faked miracle to impress Jesus' followers.

And again...

But the problem is that it's like Matthew Mark and Luke have never heard of it. I wondered whether they could have omitted it because it looks a fake, but that's not what they do , normally. So I'm leaning to the view that 'John' made the whole thing up.

Or maybe Matthew, Mark and Luke did not want to include a story that would put Lazarus back in the cross-hairs of those who were seeking to silence or kill him. Maybe that account was left for Lazarus to write (or not) as he chose.

But Matthew - at the risk of repeating myself, is demonstrably not a follower of Jesus or even a Jew. He shows with the Virgin misreading,

How do you know that is a misreading when the word translated to 'young woman' can also include a virgin?

the two Donkey mistake,

That could also be later a scribal/copyist/translation error. A colt of a donkey, versus, a colt and a donkey.

the Babes and suckling misread

Not sure what you are referring to here, sorry.

and the misread of Rachel's children to get a prophecy on his invented nativity massacre out of it,

Not sure how that's a misread, but I do know that some things can also be prophecy, even if they don't appear that way at first glance. Remember that Christ had to open the apostles' minds to understand the scriptures. Sometimes I have not seen the connection either... BUT... my Lord has opened my mind to see something written in the OT that I had no idea was applying to Him. Not until He showed it to me.

that he had to read his OT material in Greek.

Is that because you think those errors are in a greek translation that Matthew then copied?

Add to that the "Interpretation" of King of the Jews as prophesied messiah rather than pretender to the throne. Given that Herod sees the new born king as a political threat, his rushing to scripture and assurances that he only wishes to Worship the babe shows that in addition to being a Greek, he is also a Christian Greek, as that's how he interprets 'Messiah' (Christ).

Mark, Luke and "John" also have the placard on the cross above Christ as "King of the Jews".

And he rather had it in for the Jews, too. I don't know who he was, but I reckon I know what he was.

His brothers (in Christ) would have been Jews. Christ was also Jewish. Without knowing exactly what you are talking about, I will suggest to you that it has nothing to do with 'having it in for the Jews', rather than having something against those Jews who rejected Christ (specifically the Pharisees and leaders that first persecuted Christ, and then also persecuted those Jews who followed/belonged/were faithful to Christ.)


Peace again to you!

My opinion, perhaps but based on the point that John has a LOT of stuff not even hinted at in the Gospels, notably all those sermons. They contain some important theological information and it is improbable that none of it was considered worth incorporating in Mark, Luke or Matthew. And the raising of Lazarus - I once thought it was a true account, but why then doesn't it appear in the Synoptics? Why isn't the leg -breaking and spear - stab in the synoptics? I know the Method had been to fiddle a single narrative out of these contradictory accounts, but the evidence indicates a lot of stuff that was simply made up. My opinion - backed up by evidence.
That they left it out to protect Lazarus is just an excuse. John, who you seem to say was Lazarus, wasn't bothered. He wrote the whole thing. And since they were all supposedly willing to die for their faith, saying that they left out really stunning miracles that presumably the Sadducees knew already is just an excuse on your part.

The 'virgin' mistake would never be made by someone who knew Hebrew as the world is Almah (as I recall) which does not have to be a Bethulah and so making a prophecy out of it would be more likely if Matthew read 'parthenos' in the Septuagint. Again he misreads the 'two donkeys' which you find another excuse for - someone later made an edit. It requires an extensive rewrite to turn one donkey into two animals throughout the passage. And the mistranslation 'babes and sucklings' which you will not find in the OT and again comes from the Septuagint? Jesus could not have said that (aside that it is in no other gospel) What excuse have you for that? And his misunderstanding of Rachel's children (which any Jew would understand was a metaphor for the northern Kingdoms, destroyed by Assyria) turned into a prophecy of a (unhistorical) massacre? Matthew did not read Hebrew nor understand the OT, but brought his own Greek Christian views, you can see this in his nativity when Herod immediately sees the King of the Jews as a Messiah and divine figure to worship. Matthew was written by a Greek Christians.

Yes, King of the Jews is agreed by them all. The crucifixion for (effectively) rebellion of a Jewish pretender (failed messiah) is what we have there and Matthew having Herod see that as a being to be 'worshipped' and prophecied in scripture is very much the Christian view, not the Jewish. 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.

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, Luke changed Paul's account of escaping the Nabatean army approaching Damascus to escaping a plot by the Jews to kill him because he was a Christian. True, it is mainly the 'teachers of the law' who are the targets, but the synoptics are fine with sending all the Jews to Hell, 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.

Oh - my affectionate good wishes and have a nice day, week and life; but -- sorry; no peace beyond the Lie.

[Difflugia]

How do you know that is a misreading when the word translated to 'young woman' can also include a virgin?

If the word can include a virgin, but there's nothing contextual to indicate that's what the author meant, then "virgin" is a mistranslation. A translator rendering the word "automobile" as "sedan," "motorcycle," or "blue 1998 Ford Festiva" would be a mistranslation for exactly the same reason, for example.

That could also be later a scribal/copyist/translation error. A colt of a donkey, versus, a colt and a donkey.

No, it can't. Mark wrote a story about one donkey. Matthew mostly lifted Mark's exact words, but he changed them just enough to double the number of donkeys, including changing Mark's singular verb to plural ("he [Jesus] sat upon him [the colt]" vs. "he [Jesus] sat upon them [the colt and its mother]"). It's not a translation error because the Greek's about as straightforward as it gets. It's not a "copyist" error because there's no way that the necessary, coincident change to multiple words was unintentional. Somebody changed the colt into a colt and its mother. If it wasn't Matthew, then you're just shifting the problem from Matthew making a mistake to the New Testament instead being corrupt in a way that apologists otherwise spend incredible effort arguing against.

[TRANSPONDER]

How do you know that is a misreading when the word translated to 'young woman' can also include a virgin?

If the word can include a virgin, but there's nothing contextual to indicate that's what the author meant, then "virgin" is a mistranslation. A translator rendering the word "automobile" as "sedan," "motorcycle," or "blue 1998 Ford Festiva" would be a mistranslation for exactly the same reason, for example.

That could also be later a scribal/copyist/translation error. A colt of a donkey, versus, a colt and a donkey.

No, it can't. Mark wrote a story about one donkey. Matthew mostly lifted Mark's exact words, but he changed them just enough to double the number of donkeys, including changing Mark's singular verb to plural ("he [Jesus] sat upon him [the colt]" vs. "he [Jesus] sat upon them [the colt and its mother]"). It's not a translation error because the Greek's about as straightforward as it gets. It's not a "copyist" error because there's no way that the necessary, coincident change to multiple words was unintentional. Somebody changed the colt into a colt and its mother. If it wasn't Matthew, then you're just shifting the problem from Matthew making a mistake to the New Testament instead being corrupt in a way that apologists otherwise spend incredible effort arguing against.

Yes, it is a deliberate rewrite and can't be put down to error. The possible argument is that a copyist or scribe changed it later on and it is not what Matthew wrote.

I think that is not the best option for a couple of reasons - why would they see the need to change it? They had to have a reason to think it was two donkeys, not one, and the misreading of the Septuagint is the perfect explanation.

Also, as I said, this isn't the only time that Matthew does this. Not only the Bethulah/Almah thing translated in Greek as 'Parthenos' but the one less discussed - the babes and sucklings passage in the Temple Matth 21.16. This is from Psalms 8.2 which reads (in my OT) "Out of the mouth of babes and infants, thou has founded a bulwark because of thy foes'. I recall that I looked it up and the Septuagint supports what Jesus quotes (1), which Jesus surely would not have done, even if he knew Greek. It supports the argument that Matthew based his misreadings on the Septuagint.

I may repeat that, on a former board, this appeared to be refuted when it was pointed out to me that the dead sea scrolls agreed with the Septuagint. I checked his link and so it was. I was persuaded that the Septuagint at least reflected the usage at the time, and Jesus could have spoken the Matthew passage - and the Mazoretic text was wrong. Or at least not the popular usage of the time.

But later on I learned that passage is actually missing from the Qumran scrolls and online translations are filled in from what we know the text says, - so that link had to have used the Septuagint reading rather than the OT. So the case appears again to be that Jesus could not have said those words, and "Matthew" made the passage up (it appears in none of the other gospels) using the Greek mistranslation.

If so, it is slam dunk proof that Matthew could not use Hebrew, was not a Jew, was not a follower of Jesus and not an eyewitness. The suggestion that he was Jewish is because of his interest in the OT, but I'd say it was because he liked to ferret out prophecies - which were fiddled and false. It was also suggested on a former board that he kept pushing Jesus up mountains because he saw him as the New Moses. Jesus didn't destroy the Law, but fulfilled it - the Law was still valid..but Jesus had gone beyond. We see this in Matthew's personal additions to the Sermon material - Laws quoted, but Jesus replaces it, with nonsense, usually. This helps us not only understand the usually misunderstood 'jot and tittle' passage but helps us understand Matthew and his mindset, message and agenda.

So I'd say we don't Know who Matthew was, but the evidence shows What he was - a Greek, Paulinist, Christian. So were all the writers.

(1) Psalms 8.3 in the Septuagint . "3 From the mouth of infants and nursing infants I declare the praise of one of your enemies, for you are an enemy and an avenger. " (used Google translate).
"You cleaned the gun, sir, but you forgot to clean the bullet" (Lt. Frank Colombo)

[tam]

Peace to you,

How do you know that is a misreading when the word translated to 'young woman' can also include a virgin?

If the word can include a virgin, but there's nothing contextual to indicate that's what the author meant, then "virgin" is a mistranslation. A translator rendering the word "automobile" as "sedan," "motorcycle," or "blue 1998 Ford Festiva" would be a mistranslation for exactly the same reason, for example.

I don't think it is the same reasoning, because the word translated as young woman can also be referring to a virgin. Someone must have thought so even before Christ came in the flesh, because that is how it was translated in the Septuagint (as virgin). The word "alma" is also only used 7 times (that I saw, from blue letter bible), and does refer to maidens who are virgins (for certain in most cases, though a case or two might be in dispute).

Mary is also a bit of a unique case, in that she was both a virgin and a young married woman (young married women do not tend to be virgins for most of the first year of their marriages).

That could also be later a scribal/copyist/translation error. A colt of a donkey, versus, a colt and a donkey.

No, it can't. Mark wrote a story about one donkey. Matthew mostly lifted Mark's exact words, but he changed them just enough to double the number of donkeys, including changing Mark's singular verb to plural ("he [Jesus] sat upon him [the colt]" vs. "he [Jesus] sat upon them [the colt and its mother]").

Did you know that the same word translated as 'them' can be (and is also) translated as 'he, she, it'?

Autos is the word used for 'them' in the Matthew passage:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

**

Matthew also appears to be quoting directly from Zechariah 9:9.

From Zechariah:

Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your King comes to you, righteous and victorious, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

From Matthew (3 different translations):

This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: 5“Say to the Daughter of Zion, ‘See, your King comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’” NIV

Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. KJV

“SAY TO THE DAUGHTER OF ZION, ‘BEHOLD YOUR KING IS COMING TO YOU, HUMBLE, AND MOUNTED ON A DONKEY, EVEN ON A COLT, THE FOAL OF A DONKEY.’”

The NIV places a comma between donkey and colt (and this does not necessarily mean two, only that the donkey is emphasized as being a colt. A colt of a donkey is still a donkey of course.).

The KJV uses the word 'and' (donkey and colt).

The NASB uses the word 'even' (donkey, even a colt - which again is just emphasizing the donkey is a colt).

The word used for 'and' is 'kai'. That is the same word used to translate 'even'. See the following link for evidence.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... /mgnt/0-1/

So yeah, this can easily be a translation error. The original language uses the same word kai translated as 'and' or 'even', and the same word autos translated as 'it/he/she/them'.

It's not a translation error because the Greek's about as straightforward as it gets.

Obviously not. See above.

It's not a "copyist" error because there's no way that the necessary, coincident change to multiple words was unintentional. Somebody changed the colt into a colt and its mother.

Indeed. Someone did not understand (perhaps due to a translation error, or due to their own misunderstanding of the meaning of words), and so made it appear that Christ rode in on both a donkey and a colt. That didn't make much sense to me when I was a kid, trying to figure that one out. But of course He did not do that. He rode in on a donkey... - more specifically, the COLT of a donkey (which is still a donkey).

If it wasn't Matthew, then you're just shifting the problem from Matthew making a mistake to the New Testament instead being corrupt in a way that apologists otherwise spend incredible effort arguing against.

I do not argue that the bible is inerrant. There are scribal errors. The prophet Jeremiah said it IN scripture, himself: "How can you say, 'we are wise for we have the law of [the LORD]', when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely." Christ also said 'woe to you scribes'. It doesn't take that much. Just look at the hubbub that can be caused by a single mistranslated word ('them' or 'it'... or... 'and' or 'even'). It is like a comma problem. Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise. Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise. Same sentence, two meanings... and all due to a comma placement.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to tam in post #46]

You want to take that one, Difflugia, or shall I?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

John self identifies himself in the Gospel.

They only Johns I can find in mentioned in gospel John are John the Baptist and John the father of Simon Peter. Where is the self-identification you are referring to?
Tcg

The author self-identifies himself as the Beloved Disciple. There is a universal agreement in the Early Church that a certain John wrote the Gospel. Most later assumed it was John the Disciple but Papias is careful to identify John, the Elder and internal evidence suggests he was the author. I go over the details in my book.

A good argument has been made that the Beloved Disciple was Lazarus. Yes, the author identifies himself as the Beloved Disciple. He does NOT self-identify as John. To claim to know what the Early Church universally agreed on is quite a stretch. It wouldn't be possible to even know everyone who was a part of the Early Church much less what they did or did not agree on.


Tcg

Yes, and (as my Lord showed me) Lazarus is indeed identified in that gospel as the one He loved. This makes the author of "John" an eyewitness, even if most won't accept that. Just not the eyewitness that has been traditionally taught.

Luke is not an eyewitness though (as has been said in this thread). Nor does he ever claim to be an eyewitness. He claims to have investigated and then written an orderly report from what others who were eyewitnesses had handed down to them.

If Mark is a companion (or son... 1Peter 5:13) of Peter, then Mark probably got most of his information from Peter; though if Mark is Peter's actual son, he may have witnessed a few things himself.

Matthew is the one I am not sure about. I have that one in a "probably Levi" category.



Peace again to you!

At one time I was half convinced that the writer of 'John' had an eyewitness account, even though the writer edited it heavily to add his own preaching and arguments put into Jesus' mouth.

Just bolding the opinion part of your statement.

The sending of a message to Jesus in Peraea, Jesus waiting 2 days before setting out, the exchanges between Jesus and Lazarus' sisters all sounded rather detailed, though what it says is that the whole thing was a faked miracle to impress Jesus' followers.

And again...

But the problem is that it's like Matthew Mark and Luke have never heard of it. I wondered whether they could have omitted it because it looks a fake, but that's not what they do , normally. So I'm leaning to the view that 'John' made the whole thing up.

Or maybe Matthew, Mark and Luke did not want to include a story that would put Lazarus back in the cross-hairs of those who were seeking to silence or kill him. Maybe that account was left for Lazarus to write (or not) as he chose.

But Matthew - at the risk of repeating myself, is demonstrably not a follower of Jesus or even a Jew. He shows with the Virgin misreading,

How do you know that is a misreading when the word translated to 'young woman' can also include a virgin?

the two Donkey mistake,

That could also be later a scribal/copyist/translation error. A colt of a donkey, versus, a colt and a donkey.

the Babes and suckling misread

Not sure what you are referring to here, sorry.

and the misread of Rachel's children to get a prophecy on his invented nativity massacre out of it,

Not sure how that's a misread, but I do know that some things can also be prophecy, even if they don't appear that way at first glance. Remember that Christ had to open the apostles' minds to understand the scriptures. Sometimes I have not seen the connection either... BUT... my Lord has opened my mind to see something written in the OT that I had no idea was applying to Him. Not until He showed it to me.

that he had to read his OT material in Greek.

Is that because you think those errors are in a greek translation that Matthew then copied?

Add to that the "Interpretation" of King of the Jews as prophesied messiah rather than pretender to the throne. Given that Herod sees the new born king as a political threat, his rushing to scripture and assurances that he only wishes to Worship the babe shows that in addition to being a Greek, he is also a Christian Greek, as that's how he interprets 'Messiah' (Christ).

Mark, Luke and "John" also have the placard on the cross above Christ as "King of the Jews".

And he rather had it in for the Jews, too. I don't know who he was, but I reckon I know what he was.

His brothers (in Christ) would have been Jews. Christ was also Jewish. Without knowing exactly what you are talking about, I will suggest to you that it has nothing to do with 'having it in for the Jews', rather than having something against those Jews who rejected Christ (specifically the Pharisees and leaders that first persecuted Christ, and then also persecuted those Jews who followed/belonged/were faithful to Christ.)


Peace again to you!

My opinion, perhaps but based on the point that John has a LOT of stuff not even hinted at in the Gospels, notably all those sermons.

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.

They contain some important theological information and it is improbable that none of it was considered worth incorporating in Mark, Luke or Matthew.

This assumes you know what motivated them all. The only person who tells us his motivation is Luke - he was writing an orderly account of things that happened for a specific person. And Luke states himself that he was not an eyewitness.

And the raising of Lazarus - I once thought it was a true account, but why then doesn't it appear in the Synoptics? Why isn't the leg -breaking and spear - stab in the synoptics? I know the Method had been to fiddle a single narrative out of these contradictory accounts, but the evidence indicates a lot of stuff that was simply made up. My opinion - backed up by evidence.
That they left it out to protect Lazarus is just an excuse. John, who you seem to say was Lazarus, wasn't bothered. He wrote the whole thing. And since they were all supposedly willing to die for their faith, saying that they left out really stunning miracles that presumably the Sadducees knew already is just an excuse on your part.

It is one thing to be willing to die yourself, for your faith. Quite another thing to be willing to put someone else in the spotlight so that they can die for their faith.

And the mistranslation 'babes and sucklings' which you will not find in the OT and again comes from the Septuagint? Jesus could not have said that (aside that it is in no other gospel) What excuse have you for that?

1 - Are you suggesting the Septuagint was not known by the Jews of that time?
2 - What is the issue? Because the Septuagint says 'praise' and the Masoratic text says 'strength'? What do you think the strength is here from the mouths of babes and sucklings, if not praise?

Matthew did not read Hebrew nor understand the OT, but brought his own Greek Christian views,

How can something written in the Septuagint be a Greek Christian view if it was written well before Christians came on the scene?

Yes, King of the Jews is agreed by them all. The crucifixion for (effectively) rebellion of a Jewish pretender (failed messiah) is what we have there and Matthew having Herod see that as a being to be 'worshipped' and prophecied in scripture is very much the Christian view, not the Jewish.

Since King of the Jews is agree by them all, it cannot be used to suggest that Matthew was not Jewish.

And again, the Jewish view is not as united as you are making it appear, not then (or before then) or now. Are you suggesting that there were never any Jewish Christians, never Jews who followed Jaheshua? No Jewish disciples or apostles? Perhaps you are suggesting that there was no such Jewish person as Jaheshua (the one also called 'the Christ' or 'the Messiah')?

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?

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,

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?

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?

Luke changed Paul's account of escaping the Nabatean army approaching Damascus to escaping a plot by the Jews to kill him because he was a Christian. True, it is mainly the 'teachers of the law' who are the targets, but the synoptics are fine with sending all the Jews to Hell,

Now that is just not true. Not unless you understand that hell simply means sheol/world of the dead, where the dead go to await the resurrection OF the dead (and even then, that would not mean all Jews, because those Jews who are also in Christ go under the altar to await the first resurrection.) And Paul even says outright that all Israel will be saved, that they are loved on account of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob).

Isn't it interesting that you seem to give more credence to a religious interpretation (an erroneous one at that), than I do?

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.

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.



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)?

Oh - my affectionate good wishes and have a nice day, week and life; but -- sorry; no peace beyond the Lie.

Yeah, I don't know what that means.

But peace still to you and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Difflugia]

Peace to you,

And to you. Thank you.

I don't think it is the same reasoning, because the word translated as young woman can also be referring to a virgin.

Not, as I think you mean, a virgin as opposed to a non-virgin.

Someone must have thought so even before Christ came in the flesh, because that is how it was translated in the Septuagint (as virgin).

That's the mistranslation that we're talking about.

The word "alma" is also only used 7 times (that I saw, from blue letter bible), and does refer to maidens who are virgins (for certain in most cases, though a case or two might be in dispute).

The word is the feminine noun form of a verb that means "to be sexually mature." There's a corresponding male form of the noun (ʿelem) that means "young man." Neither the verb nor male noun implies virginity, so there's no reason to think that the female form does, either.

Mary is also a bit of a unique case, in that she was both a virgin and a young married woman (young married women do not tend to be virgins for most of the first year of their marriages).

The Greek of the New Testament says parthenos, "virgin," so doesn't bear on the meaning of Isaiah 7:11.

Did you know that the same word translated as 'them' can be (and is also) translated as 'he, she, it'?

Autos is the word used for 'them' in the Matthew passage:

Autos is the root word. It changes based on case and gender. In Mark 11:7, Jesus sat on αὐτόν, accusative male singular. In Matthew 21:7, Jesus sat on αὐτῶν, genitive masculine plural.

It's not a translation error because the Greek's about as straightforward as it gets.

Obviously not. See above.

You misunderstood.

[TRANSPONDER]

Hi. Tam. I'll get back to you on the rest of your post, but just one point 'No peace beyond the Lie' and the claim about the 'circle of the earth' which might have been on another thread.

Sorry, it was a bit obscure. No peace beyond the Lie is a pun on the 'No peace beyond the line' which relates to British 16th -18 c privateering (government approved piracy) whether there was a war on or not. No peace beyond the Lie uses it to relate to the Big Lie which for me means the entire fabrication and fallacy of Christian claims.

The circle of the earth and compasses are both in Isaiah 40. 22 had circle as 'hug' (it was 'chwug' last time I looked) and 44.13 describes compasses as 'u-ba- ma-hug-ah' The 'circle' element 'hug' (or chwug as I last saw it) shows that the 'circle' is a flat circle as scribed by compasses. The whole Isaiah passage when seen as a flat disk with a 'canopy' of heaven over it with God peering down seeing people like ants all makes sense.
'ball' is also in Isaiah 22.18. "Luke a ball" "Kad -dur". The word 'dur' was there if the Bible wanted to refer to a sphere - shape.