When was the Gospel of Matthew really written?

[polonius]

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jewishtemple.htm

The Roman legions surrounded the city and began to slowly squeeze the life out of the Jewish stronghold. By the year 70, the attackers had breached Jerusalem's outer walls and began a systematic ransacking of the city. The assault culminated in the burning and destruction of the Temple that served as the center of Judaism.

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

The Gospel According to Matthew (Greek: Τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον ε�αγγέλιον, translit. Tò katà Matthaīon euangélion; also called the Gospel of Matthew or simply, Matthew) is the first book of the New Testament and one of the three synoptic gospels. It tells how the Messiah, Jesus, rejected by Israel, finally sends the disciples to preach the gospel to the whole world.[1] Most scholars believe it was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view).[2][3] The anonymous author was probably a male Jew,

The gospel we call Matthew's was written anonymously about 80 A.D. In approximately 135 A.D., Papias, an early and not too reliable a Church Father, named it Matthew's and the name stuck.

It claims that Jesus foresaw the destruction of the Temple, but since this gospel was written about 80 AD, or about 10 years after the event, it isn't a convincing prophecy fulfillment.

When compared with the other Gospels and history itself, Matthew's gospel contains a number of contradictions.

[polonius]

OK

Matthew 16:28
New American Standard Bible
"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Luke 9:27
International Standard Version
I tell you with certainty, some people who are standing here wom't experience death until they see the kingdom of God."

[polonius]

Matthew 9:9 "As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,� he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him."

RESPONSE: Written by Matthew the Evangelist not the Apostle himself. Isn't Matthew the Evangelist also the one who has Jesus sending for and riding two animals of different sizes? And quoting from the wrong OT writing.

Humm... indeed!

From the New American Bible, Revised Edition, 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.:

So Matthew 9:9 was written by the story writer, not the Apostle. How do think that Matthew the Evangelist came up with the story?

[For_The_Kingdom]

RESPONSE: It is always interesting to read the argument of those who try to convince us that the bible is inerrant.

Sure, and we succeed in doing so.

1. The plain meaning of words. Mark, Luke, and John report only one animal (“It� is always singular. ) Matthew claims two animals ( “Them� is always pleural).

2. Kingdom tells us that if there were two animals there was at least one animal. In Mathew’s account we are talking at two animals so Jesus a fulfill a prophecy. It’s not “an issue of logic,� it’s an issue of the plain meaning of words.

Actually, this is an issue of logic..because based on the testimony of all accounts, we can draw the logical conclusion that there was at least two animals in question...a donkey, and a colt.

This is no different than you asking me "Do you have a car", and I answer yes...yet, in reality, I have 3 cars. Well, if I have 3, I have at least one.

Just because we are focusing on "a" car (1/3) says nothing about the other two cars in my possession.

3. Matthew misquotes the prophecy as:

“Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.�

4. (NAB) * [21:4–5] The prophet: this fulfillment citation is actually composed of two distinct Old Testament texts,

Is 62:11 (Say to daughter Zion) and Zec 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. That Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake

5. Matthew misunderstands the prophecy using the word “And� in his gospel. There is no “and� in the prophecy that Matthew tries to fulfill with his gospel..

Um, not so fast. Not all translations of the Bible uses the word "and" in this context...

(EXB) “Tell ·the people of Jerusalem [L the daughter of Zion; C a metaphor for Israel],
‘[L Look; T Behold,] Your king is coming to you.
He is ·gentle [humble] and ·riding [mounted] on a donkey,
on the colt of a donkey

See? No "and". And (no pun intended) that is just one of many.

[Tcg]

RESPONSE: It is always interesting to read the argument of those who try to convince us that the bible is inerrant.

Sure, and we succeed in doing so.

You haven't convinced me it is inerrant. Their are plenty others here you haven't convinced.

The "we" you speak have quite clearly not achieved the victory you have claimed for your group.

You convince people who already agree that the Bible is inerrant, but that's not much a feat.

[For_The_Kingdom]

For the kingdom tells us:

A seeming difficulty is the fact that Matthew attributes the prophecy to Jeremiah, not Zechariah. The explanation is two-fold. First, Jeremiah also bought a field at the Lord’s command (Jeremiah 32:6-9). Second, the Hebrew Bible was divided into three sections: the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets. The Prophets began with Jeremiah, and it was common for people to refer to the whole section (which included Zechariah) as “the book of Jeremiah.�

“First, we are not to accuse Matthew with making a mistake. The apostle was inspired of God; he did not err.�

Then didn't God inspire Matthew incorrectly, since there is a clear blunder here?
So much for the inerrancy of scripture.

So, instead of responding to the explanation that was provided, you are pretty much repeating your assertion that Matthew erred.

Readers...note

“Second, we are not to change the biblical text (e.g., deleting “Jeremiah,� and substituting “Zechariah�), in an attempt to help Matthew, when the manuscript evidence warrants no alteration. In this passage, as Metzger observes “the reading [Jeremiah] is firmly established� (1971, 66).�

If the explanation provided is correct, then it isn't established. Is it true, that the whole section of Jeremiah (including Zachariah) would still be called "The book of Jeremiah"?

Even if such an explanation is POSSIBLY true, then that would blow your contradiction theory right out of the water...because for it to be truly a "contradiction", then there is no possible way for it to be reconciled...yet, the explanation provided seems plausible.

4. Zechariah: (12-14) The shepherd is paid with contempt.

Then I said to them, “If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.� So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter�; that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter. Then I cut in two my other staff, Bonds, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

Note: Zechariah is talking about a wage dispute here, not the betrayal of Jesus.

Um, Zechariah is clearly prophesizing Jesus' future betrayal for 30 pieces of silver. Clearly...because not only did Judas betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver (Matt 26:15), but the money was eventually used to purchase a potters field (Matt 27:7).

That is more than just a coincidence...that is prophecy.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Paul, Hebrews 9:29 “Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment,�

Um, Paul is talking about the natural order of things as directed by God on earth..and he is right...because MOST of us will only die once...however, the Bible is clear that there are exceptions to this..and those exceptions are based upon God's divine will and authority, and if he so desires, he can/will allow a person to be resurrected and presumably die again, which goes completely against the natural order of things, which is what Paul is talking about.

Obviously, God is the author of life and death...so he can do what he wants.

So now where are all those people who were raised from the dead and visited many in Jerusalem (see Matthew's gospel) Inspired and inerrant?

Maybe they died again. Maybe they are living now. Or maybe they were taken up to heaven like Enoch.

Again, the Bible doesn't say.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Matthew 9:9 "As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,� he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him."

RESPONSE: Written by Matthew the Evangelist not the Apostle himself. Isn't Matthew the Evangelist also the one who has Jesus sending for and riding two animals of different sizes?

Um, Matthew the Apostle and Matthew the Evangelist are the same person.

From the New American Bible, Revised Edition, 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.:

That assessment would work if and only if Mark wasn't a companion of Peter, and since Peter was Jesus' right hand man, that would make Mark a reliable person to get information from, don't you think? Second, it is evident that the book of Matthew has almost double the amount of chapters that the book of Mark has..which would mean that almost half of Matthews material couldn't have come from Mark...so who could it have come from? Himself.

So Matthew 9:9 was written by the story writer, not the Apostle. How do think that Matthew the Evangelist came up with the story?

They are the same person, sir.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You haven't convinced me it is inerrant. Their are plenty others here you haven't convinced.

The "we" you speak have quite clearly not achieved the victory you have claimed for your group.

You convince people who already agree that the Bible is inerrant, but that's not much a feat.

The Christian faith aint for everyone, is it?

[polonius]

For the kingdom posted:

That assessment would work if and only if Mark wasn't a companion of Peter, and since Peter was Jesus' right hand man, that would make Mark a reliable person to get information from, don't you think? Second, it is evident that the book of Matthew has almost double the amount of chapters that the book of Mark has..which would mean that almost half of Matthews material couldn't have come from Mark...so who could it have come from? Himself.

polonius.advice wrote:


So Matthew 9:9 was written by the story writer, not the Apostle. How do think that Matthew the Evangelist came up with the story?

They are the same person, sir.

RESPONSE: Of course not!

New American Bible, Introduction to Matthew’s Gospel

“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.�

“Matthew� gospel was written anonymously. It’s author was first named by Papias about 135 AD. (Papias is not considered the brightest of the Church fathers – see Eusebius on Papias.

Perhaps among the Gospels, Matthew contains the largest number of blunders. My favorite is the “rodeo Jesus� story of Jesus riding two animals of different sizes when entering Jerusalem. The author of Matthew’ gospel was trying to “fulfill� what he considered a prophecy from the Old Testament which he misunderstood. It does not contain the word “and� when describing the king riding an animal.

[For_The_Kingdom]

polonius.advice wrote:


So Matthew 9:9 was written by the story writer, not the Apostle. How do think that Matthew the Evangelist came up with the story?

They are the same person.

They are the same person, sir.

RESPONSE: Of course not!

New American Bible, Introduction to Matthew’s Gospel

“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.�

I've already addressed this.

“Matthew� gospel was written anonymously.

Which no one has ever denied.

It’s author was first named by Papias about 135 AD. (Papias is not considered the brightest of the Church fathers – see Eusebius on Papias.

I am not the "brightest" of Christian apologists, but I am quite sure who wrote "The Cat in the Hat".

Perhaps among the Gospels, Matthew contains the largest number of blunders. My favorite is the “rodeo Jesus� story of Jesus riding two animals of different sizes when entering Jerusalem. The author of Matthew’ gospel was trying to “fulfill� what he considered a prophecy from the Old Testament which he misunderstood. It does not contain the word “and� when describing the king riding an animal.

I already addressed this, and instead of responding to my points you simply ignore it and regurgitate the same stuff you said before.

Its all good. I'll take the W on this exchange.