Who was the author of Matthew?

[jd01]

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

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok, a bit more Tam wrote: "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)." and....


and I sorta lost it. There is so much...quoting the Bible as though that proved the Bible, when what the Bible says is being questioned, denying the basis of Matthew's damning of the Jews as the bottom line of Anti -semitism, and your saying that's not what the Bible says, which is clearly your own personal brand of Christianity which is not mainstream Church, Tammy, and therefore (it has to be said) irrelevant to the discussion.but what I wrote before (then my connection went off was that denial of the real and evident contradictions in the Bible only works if people buy them.

I think they have been sold a fairy story version which they do not check. The all think the Shepherds and magi turned up at the stable at the same time, and yet it is evident that the magi turned up two years later (which is why Herod asks when the star appeared and targets the two year olds - clear Plot construction)and it was Joseph's house anyway as they planned to go back there after returning from Egypt and they had to be told to go to nazareth where they had evidently never lived before. This utterly contradicts Luke. There is no way that can be waved away as slips of memory, Tammy, it is demonstrably contradictgions cause by making up two sifferent stories to argue the same dogma.

And that's what we find in the resurrection, too. Aside from the tomb guard (that nobody else seems to know about) Jesus has the women run into Jesus, and I don't know how you can convince the peanut gallery that the women didn't tell the disciples that they saw Jesus and Cleophas (who must have heard what they said) relates that they saw angels but not that they saw Jesus. This cannot be explained away as sliupsof memory, but is independentlky fabricated resurrection -stories because (like bethlehem) there wasn't one (Mark has neither) and that has to be put right.

This is clear as crysta, Tammy, once you see the clues laid out and denial will not (I hope and trust) prevent the reader from seeing it.

The only hope for the Bible is that nobody gets to see it. I gotta dream terday..that they will, it is my mission.

Of course those are two Biggies. The missing Transfigurations is the third, the missing assassination at Nazareth, another, the misssing raising of Lazarus, and the Q document material of the Sermon on the mount and (as I luv to say) 'Most of the rest of the Book'. It is 80% contradiction and demonstrably, slipsof memory will not do, not once people understand these contradictions and are not spoonfed Christian apologetics excuses.

[tam]

Peace to you 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.

But it is not irrelevant. If you are trying to understand what might have influenced what was said back then, then you have to know what was true and known at the time. Otherwise you are starting with the idea that Gentile Christians wanted to show Jews in a bad light (or some such thing) and then making the evidence fit that idea... rather than considering the fact that that Christ - a JEW - was correcting some of the false beliefs and false teachings and inappropriate attitudes of His fellow Jews. He is the Teacher; that is what a Teacher does.

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.

To the Samaritan woman at the well:

Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews say that the place where one must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21“Believe Me, woman,” [Jesus] replied, “a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews."

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.

Yeah, well, that is not the meaning either. The Jews are the ones who believed themselves to be better than the Samaritans; that the Samaritans were not true Israel (having mixed blood), and that Samaritans were therefore NOT their brothers. That is an attitude that Christ was correcting. Would you not agree that that is an attitude that should be corrected? You seem to understand that it is not a good attitude for those who profess to be Christian to have, but you overlook or perhaps just dismiss the idea that the Jews had this attitude toward the Samaritans at that time.


Peace again to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you 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.

But it is not irrelevant. If you are trying to understand what might have influenced what was said back then, then you have to know what was true and known at the time. Otherwise you are starting with the idea that Gentile Christians wanted to show Jews in a bad light (or some such thing) and then making the evidence fit that idea... rather than considering the fact that that Christ - a JEW - was correcting some of the false beliefs and false teachings and inappropriate attitudes of His fellow Jews. He is the Teacher; that is what a Teacher does.

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.

To the Samaritan woman at the well:

Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews say that the place where one must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21“Believe Me, woman,” [Jesus] replied, “a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews."

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.

Yeah, well, that is not the meaning either. The Jews are the ones who believed themselves to be better than the Samaritans; that the Samaritans were not true Israel (having mixed blood), and that Samaritans were therefore NOT their brothers. That is an attitude that Christ was correcting. Would you not agree that that is an attitude that should be corrected? You seem to understand that it is not a good attitude for those who profess to be Christian to have, but you overlook or perhaps just dismiss the idea that the Jews had this attitude toward the Samaritans at that time.


Peace again to you.

You are still missing the point; it is irrelevant how the Jews regarded the Samaritans, it is how the gospel -writers regarded that, which is as proxy - gentiles when a Roman centurion wasn't handy so as to present this clear ploy of showing (as Jesus says a couple of times) how much more worthy Gentiles were than anyone he found in Israel. It's my take and you may disagree, but I see that as a Greek -Christian Paulinist swipe at the Jews and their Law - based Faith.

Your reference to the Samarian woman seems equally clear to me. 'Jews have no dealings with Samaritans' John says. While the origins from Jacob are mentioned, that they are not now Jews (because they don't worship at the Temples) is, as you say, clear. To take another approach, look at the 10 lepers (Luke 17.18) "Was no-one found to turn and give praise to God except this foreigner?" Isn't that pikestaff - clear?

Whether or not you and I agree that the hostility between Jews and Samaritans is one that should have been corrected, the point is that the gospel - writers employed this to depict Samaritans as not Jews and therefore Gentiles enough to put into little stories to show how much more worthy the Gentiles were than the Jews. Don't you see that this is what is going on rather than Jesus trying to reconcile this hostility? And it is you rather than I that dismissed this hostility (I said it made them effectively Gentiles - as the gospels see them) by your arguing that they were the same in origins, which as I said was irrelevant to how the Jews regarded them, which you now apparently accept, saying that it was a bad attitude that should have been corrected.

Peace to you as always, but not as regards the Lie. That deserves to be corrected, too.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you 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.

But it is not irrelevant. If you are trying to understand what might have influenced what was said back then, then you have to know what was true and known at the time. Otherwise you are starting with the idea that Gentile Christians wanted to show Jews in a bad light (or some such thing) and then making the evidence fit that idea... rather than considering the fact that that Christ - a JEW - was correcting some of the false beliefs and false teachings and inappropriate attitudes of His fellow Jews. He is the Teacher; that is what a Teacher does.

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.

To the Samaritan woman at the well:

Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews say that the place where one must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21“Believe Me, woman,” [Jesus] replied, “a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews."

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.

Yeah, well, that is not the meaning either. The Jews are the ones who believed themselves to be better than the Samaritans; that the Samaritans were not true Israel (having mixed blood), and that Samaritans were therefore NOT their brothers. That is an attitude that Christ was correcting. Would you not agree that that is an attitude that should be corrected? You seem to understand that it is not a good attitude for those who profess to be Christian to have, but you overlook or perhaps just dismiss the idea that the Jews had this attitude toward the Samaritans at that time.


Peace again to you.

You are still missing the point; it is irrelevant how the Jews regarded the Samaritans, it is how the gospel -writers regarded that, which is as proxy - gentiles when a Roman centurion wasn't handy so as to present this clear ploy of showing (as Jesus says a couple of times) how much more worthy Gentiles were than anyone he found in Israel. It's my take and you may disagree, but I see that as a Greek -Christian Paulinist swipe at the Jews and their Law - based Faith.

I understand that you are presenting your take.

I am pointing out the flaws in your take.

How the Jews regarded the Samaritans is certainly relevant, as it is at the heart of some of the interactions between the Jews and Samaritans and Christ.

As I said earlier, you appear to be starting with a conclusion, and forcing the evidence fit. I don't know how to address that except to point out the facts, show you how the quotes from the bible that you are using are being taken out of context, and point out relevant quotes that undermine your argument. What you do with that is up to you.

You said earlier that [Jesus] had a partiality for Gentiles. I pointed out the fact that Christ healed more Jews than anyone else; that He chose 12 Jews to be His apostles. The disciple He loved most was a JEW. The family He loved who took Him in (Mary, Martha, Lazarus) were JEWS. Yes, He commended the faith of the gentile woman who exercised great faith in Him. He also commended JEWISH woman who poured perfume on him, for having done such a beautiful thing for Him, and stated outright that this story would continue to be told about her.

Your reference to the Samarian woman seems equally clear to me. 'Jews have no dealings with Samaritans' John says. While the origins from Jacob are mentioned, that they are not now Jews (because they don't worship at the Temples) is, as you say, clear. To take another approach, look at the 10 lepers (Luke 17.18) "Was no-one found to turn and give praise to God except this foreigner?" Isn't that pikestaff - clear?

This might be a side issue at this point, but Samaritans were never Jews. Israel is made up of 12 tribes. Jews are descended from two tribes; Samaritans are descended from ten tribes. Jews and Samaritans are both Israel. Jews and Samaritans are not both Jews.

But yes, the Jews did not consider the Samaritans to be true or pure Israel.

Whether or not you and I agree that the hostility between Jews and Samaritans is one that should have been corrected, the point is that the gospel - writers employed this to depict Samaritans as not Jews and therefore Gentiles enough to put into little stories to show how much more worthy the Gentiles were than the Jews.

Unless you are a mind-reader of people who lived two thousand years ago, I do not know how you can make such a definitive statement on what the gospel writers 'employed' and why they 'employed' it. Even just using the word 'employ' depends upon the idea that none of these events actually happened, and that the gospel writers just made it all up, and not only is there no evidence for that, it makes no sense. Why would some random Gentile people use the messiah concept from Israel, to start a new faith and/or religion for Gentiles?

Don't you see that this is what is going on rather than Jesus trying to reconcile this hostility?

Of course I do not see that.

You have to begin with the premise that it is made up, in order to apply motives to people for why they made the story go that way. Doesn't make sense (see above).

Instead, it makes more sense that the gospel writers wrote according to what they (or other witnesses) saw and heard. And as is the case for witness accounts (especially witness accounts that are in written form only, handed down for a couple thousand years), some details and/or remembrances are bound to be different and/or misunderstood.

And it is you rather than I that dismissed this hostility (I said it made them effectively Gentiles - as the gospels see them) by your arguing that they were the same in origins, which as I said was irrelevant to how the Jews regarded them, which you now apparently accept, saying that it was a bad attitude that should have been corrected.

Where did I dismiss the hostility between Jew and Samaritan? Just because I pointed out the fact that they have the same origins does not mean that there is no hostility.


The POINT is that Samaritans were also Israel, and that is why you are going to get interactions with them and Christ. Not because the gospel writers 'employed' them as 'proxy-gentiles' to point out how much more worthy the gentiles are over the Jews. But because the Samaritans TOO were Israel, and Christ KNEW this. He came for the lost sheep of ISRAEL.

Note that he ignored the gentile (caananite) woman at first, (until her comment about 'even the dogs eat the crumbs from the master's table'), but he spoke with the Samaritan woman without issue.




Peace again.

[TRANSPONDER]

You are missing the point of a particular agenda - while Jesus of course is shown as healing lots of Jews {even Matthew explains that his mission was to the lost peoople of israel, even if it was known they wouldn't turn repent and be saved, unless God does NOT know what is going to happen} - it is for Getniles that Jesus observing greater faith {and worthiness} is reserved, and Samaritans, for that purpose, will do as Gentiles or near enough. This greater faith trope is not found for Jews; rather they fail, they betray, they cannot give up wealth, they run away and they fail to understand anything.

I did not begin with an assumption to that effect; whoever does? It was a puzzle at first, as many other things were puzzles, but one clue {that the gospels were based on Paul, not Paul on the gospels} and everything started to make sense - why the Jews are made responsible for the crucifixion and Rome is excused, why Jesus says his followers are more his family than his family, why Jesus lectures and corrects the teachers of the law, dismisses the Laws and the sabbath as no longer needed and there is something greater than the Temple - Gentiles are the new Jews.

That explains all the puzzles and makes sense of everything, though of course one has to ask the questions first If we just coast along in unquestioning faith and dismiss anyone who raises questions, then it won't arise.

It isn't just this, but everything absolutely everything - all discrepancies, puzzles and worries, like no nativity or resurrection appearance in Mark, the two swords in Luke, and Jesus not knowing he was going to help the Canaanite woman or that there was no point asking to be let off crucifixion.

Of course one has to ask the questions, first or not just dismiss them with a stock excuse, never mind far to eagerly pointing the accusing finger at me for being biased and prejudiced, oh yes you did.

Peace, Tammy, but not beyond the Lie.

p.s I wasn't going to be distracted, but I have to deal with this - recounting the Canaanite woman and the dogs can eat the crumbs is irrelevant to the discussion and a distraction, even if you didn't intend it as such but as an explanation; it isn't. Sure it is all to do with Jesus being sent to the Jews and he says the Gentiles are dogs {Christian projection}, but she grovels and he is amazed as the greater Faith than the Jews have {it's why he even goes to Tyre, when his mission is to Israel; convenient plot -device}. Agenda done, even written from Jesus being 'sent' to the Jews, for no reason other than to reserve the mission to the Gentiles for Paul.