How reliable is the scriptures we have?

[polonius]

Before we examine any religious belief system, lets consider it's writings.

Lets start with the Gospel of Matthew.

From Introduction to Matthew in the New American Bible (Catholic) US Catholic Conference of Bishops.

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories."

What we call the Gospel of Matthew is unsigned and didn't have a name until the second century when if that named by Papius, not the brightest Church Father.

“Eusebius of Caesarea - On Papias - original Greek Text with English translation�
From Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 39.
13. For he (Papius) appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.

[onewithhim]

In the Gospel attributed to Matthew, the gospel writer makes an extraordinary claim concerning world geography. He wrote that the devil took Jesus to the top of a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world.
Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory Matthew 4:8

The disturbing thing is that this mountain does not exist. There is no mountain from which one can see all the kingdoms of the world.

Of course not. We understand that the Devil showed Jesus all those things in a VISION.

RESPONSE: Where did you come up with the vision idea? Who is the "we" who makes this claim.

The writer named "Matthew" who was not an apostle would have no personal knowledge of any of this.

And can Jesus be tricked by the devil?

We're dealing with imagination not fact in this writer's yarn.

See other comments here regarding the vision idea, please. The "we" that advocate the vision scenario are Jehovah's Witnesses.

The writer named Matthew WAS an Apostle.

Jesus could not be tricked by the Devil, but he could have decided to cash in his chips and take up the Devil on his offer. That would have been a deliberate rejection of Jehovah as the Sovereign of the universe. It was his choice to make. Power and glory now, or power and glory later. "Now" would mean a very diabolical end, while waiting a few thousand years would mean eternal glory beside his Father.

[Difflugia]

We understand that the Devil showed Jesus all those things in a VISION.

RESPONSE: Where did you come up with the vision idea? Who is the "we" who makes this claim.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the New World Translation Study Edition has a note at Matthew 4:8 that reads:

showed him: The ruler of the demons apparently caused Jesus to see a vision that appeared to be real.

A search in the Watchtower Library found this response to a letter from a reader:

What, though, of the temptation wherein Jesus was shown “all the kingdoms of the world�? Obviously, he did not literally see all the kingdoms; there is no literal mountain from which all of them can be seen. So Satan may have used some sort of vision to show these to Jesus, similar to the way a projector and a screen can be used to show someone pictures of various places on earth. However, although a vision may have been used, the “act of worship� would have been real, not imaginary. (Matt. 4:8, 9) It could be argued, then, that the temptation to jump off the battlement of the temple involved a real action with real consequences—adding a greater seriousness to this temptation than would be the case were it a mere vision.

[polonius]

Onewithhim claims:

[quote]The writer named Matthew WAS an Apostle. [quote]


RESPONSE:
Hardly, from the New American Bible Introduction to Matthew: “The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories.�

Did the writer of Matthew ever claim the name Matthew?

Try to find Matthew claiming he was a apostle or speaking to any other character or any speaking to him.

The gospel we call Matthew wasn’t named until the second century by Papius, not the brightest bishop as the writings of Eusebius point out.

Does Matthew use his name anywhere in the Gospel of Matthew?

And how many animals does Matthew claim Jesus rode into Jerusalem?

And he apparently didn’t grasp that the word “almah� referring to Mary is translated as “young woman� not virgin.

[brianbbs67]

Onewithhim claims:

The writer named Matthew WAS an Apostle.

RESPONSE:
Hardly, from the New American Bible Introduction to Matthew: “The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories.�

Did the writer of Matthew ever claim the name Matthew?

Try to find Matthew claiming he was a apostle or speaking to any other character or any speaking to him.

The gospel we call Matthew wasn’t named until the second century by Papius, not the brightest bishop as the writings of Eusebius point out.

Does Matthew use his name anywhere in the Gospel of Matthew?

And how many animals does Matthew claim Jesus rode into Jerusalem?

And he apparently didn’t grasp that the word “almah� referring to Mary is translated as “young woman� not virgin.

.The 2 animals is a poor translation, I grant you that. Almah usually means young woman but could also mean virgin. But, I don't believe the Messiah would have to be born of a virgin.

[onewithhim]

Onewithhim claims:

The writer named Matthew WAS an Apostle.

RESPONSE:
Hardly, from the New American Bible Introduction to Matthew: “The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories.�

Did the writer of Matthew ever claim the name Matthew?

Try to find Matthew claiming he was a apostle or speaking to any other character or any speaking to him.

The gospel we call Matthew wasn’t named until the second century by Papius, not the brightest bishop as the writings of Eusebius point out.

Does Matthew use his name anywhere in the Gospel of Matthew?

And how many animals does Matthew claim Jesus rode into Jerusalem?

And he apparently didn’t grasp that the word “almah� referring to Mary is translated as “young woman� not virgin.

This is what the book "All Scripture Is Inspired of God & Beneficial," 1990, Brooklyn, NY says about Matthew: "The first to put the good news about the Christ into writing was Matthew....He was one of the 12 apostles chosen by Jesus. During the time the Master traveled throughout the land of Palestine preaching and teaching about God's Kingdom, Matthew had a close, intimate relationship with him." It says that "he readily responded to Jesus' invitation to follow him."

"While the Gospel does not name him as the writer, the overwhelming testimony of early church historians stamps him as such....From as far back as Papias of Hierapolis (early 2nd century A.D.) onward, we have a line of early witnesses to the fact that Matthew wrote this Gospel and that it is an authentic part of the Word of God....Jerome says: 'Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language.'...Early in the third century, Origen is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the 'first [Gospel]was written according to Matthew."

(Referring to Mark---He wasn't an immediate companion of Jesus, not an apostle, but according to the earliest tradition of Papias, Origen, and Tertullian, Peter provided Mark with intimate details about Jesus' ministry, as Mark was a close associate of his, and of course Peter was an eye witness of just about all that Mark recorded.)

Where does Eusebius point out that Papias wasn't operating on all cylinders?

It doesn't bother me at all that a "young woman" was to have the Messiah. So what that it didn't say "virgin?" That doesn't negate anything that Luke and the other Gospel writers said about the virgin Mary becoming pregnant by God's Holy Spirit.

[polonius]

Onewithhim claims:

Where does Eusebius point out that Papias wasn't operating on all cylinders?

RESPONSE:

Eusebius of Caesera From Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 39.


13. For he (Papius)appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.

[polonius]

Onewithhim claims:


And he apparently didn’t grasp that the word “almah� referring to Mary is translated as “young woman� not virgin.[/quote]



, I grant you that. woman but could also mean virgin.

But, I don't believe the Messiah would have to be born of a virgin.[/quote]

RESPONSE:

"Almah" certainly does not mean virgin. It means a young woman of marriageable age.

In the few verses where almah appears, the word clearly denotes a young woman who is not married but is of marriageable age. Although almah does not implicitly denote virginity, it is never used in the Scriptures to describe a “young, presently married woman.� It is important to remember that in the Bible, a young Jewish woman of marriageable age was presumed to be chaste.

The prophet could have chosen a different word had he wanted to describe Immanuel’s mother as a virgin. Betulah is a more common way to refer to a woman who has never been with a man (both in biblical and modern Hebrew)."

[onewithhim]

Onewithhim claims:

Where does Eusebius point out that Papias wasn't operating on all cylinders?

RESPONSE:

Eusebius of Caesera From Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 39.


13. For he (Papius)appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.

O.K. Fair enough. But there are OTHERS that stated that Matthew was the author of that Gospel, as I noted in my post, and I think it is unfair to say that Eusebius or anyone could know what the church fathers were thinking and accuse them of blindly following Papius' opinions about Matthew.

Do you know exactly what it was about Papius' teaching that Eusebius felt was not showing proper understanding?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 47 by polonius]

I didn't say "I don't think the Messiah had to be born of a virgin." I think that was brian.


Anyway, I don't get why anyone gets stuck on this "almah" thing. I don't care if the Messiah was born of a virgin or not. The fact remains, IMO, that the Messiah was born into the world, and he was from God, to do God's will.


I think you are splitting hairs and straining out a gnat to swallow a camel. It has been said that "almah" can be taken in more ways than one.

[Difflugia]

O.K. Fair enough. But there are OTHERS that stated that Matthew was the author of that Gospel, as I noted in my post, and I think it is unfair to say that Eusebius or anyone could know what the church fathers were thinking and accuse them of blindly following Papius' opinions about Matthew.

Do you know exactly what it was about Papius' teaching that Eusebius felt was not showing proper understanding?

To be fair to Eusebius, that's exactly what it looks like.

I posted supporting links to the Papias/Irenaeus stuff in another recent thread.

In short, it looks like Papias had a different Matthew altogether. Irenaeus had our Matthew (he quotes from it extensively), but appears to be erroneously relying on Papias for its identification. Everyone afterward appears to take Irenaeus's word for it.