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.

[brianbbs67]

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.

You need to research a little. Matthew was originally called the Sayings of Jesus Christ. In about 135 AD, it was renamed Matthew, but No Matthew was involved. Matthew borrows exclusively from Mark, btu also has input from another source that scholars call "Q". No one knows for sure who that was.
There is an M source too, maybe...

This is mostly on point

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

Mark was written by the secretary of Paul, not the Disciple. It is considered the earliest written record of Christ. About 80AD. The original ends at verse 16:8. The rest was added by copyists in the mid 400s.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You need to research a little.

I will, as soon as you say something that requires me to do so.

Matthew was originally called the Sayings of Jesus Christ.
In about 135 AD, it was renamed Matthew, but No Matthew was involved. Matthew borrows exclusively from Mark, btu also has input from another source that scholars call "Q". No one knows for sure who that was.

Um, the "Q" source is actually the material of which you claim is called "The Sayings of Jesus Christ".

The Sayings of Jesus = Q source

Whether or not Matthew used Q as a source is speculative...there is nothing conclusive about it.

Second, Matthew is a full-blown biography of Jesus, a biography which consists of more than Jesus' sayings..so you would have to explain where Matthew got all of his material from, and it couldn't be just from Mark..because Matthew has almost double as many chapters as Mark.

So you need to do some more digging, sir.

There is an M source too, maybe...

Maybe, maybe not.

Mark was written by the secretary of Paul, not the Disciple.

That is not the testimony of the early church fathers.

It is considered the earliest written record of Christ.

No it wasn't. Paul's letters were.

About 80AD. The original ends at verse 16:8. The rest was added by copyists in the mid 400s.

That date is bad...and theories for the original ending of Mark are many.

[brianbbs67]

I mispoke when I said earliest record, I meant earliest gospel.

Mark was earlier than 80 ad, like 65-70. But, that doesn't change that the earliest manuscripts omit 16:9-20 and part of 7:16, 7:31, 9:34, 36 and 37 completely. Also 9:44, 46. 11:10, 26, 12:3, part of 10, part of 15:15-16, 28, and the aforementioned 16:9-20. Mid 100s for most of it.

As to the Q thing, I have not seen it said to be the same as the sayings of Jesus. An I didn't say all of Matthew cam from Mark, just that it drew heavily on Mark and "Q" and maybe an "M". Mark seems to straighten the roads of Matthew and Luke, IMHO.

I am open to learning. So, if you have data on this , I would like look at it. And I stand corrected on the dates. Some times answering off the top of your head leaves out important detail.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I mispoke when I said earliest record, I meant earliest gospel.

Mark was earlier than 80 ad, like 65-70. But, that doesn't change that the earliest manuscripts omit 16:9-20 and part of 7:16, 7:31, 9:34, 36 and 37 completely. Also 9:44, 46. 11:10, 26, 12:3, part of 10, part of 15:15-16, 28, and the aforementioned 16:9-20. Mid 100s for most of it.

As to the Q thing, I have not seen it said to be the same as the sayings of Jesus. An I didn't say all of Matthew cam from Mark, just that it drew heavily on Mark and "Q" and maybe an "M". Mark seems to straighten the roads of Matthew and Luke, IMHO.

I am open to learning. So, if you have data on this , I would like look at it. And I stand corrected on the dates. Some times answering off the top of your head leaves out important detail.

I recommend you check out Lee Strobel's books, the one in particular The Case for Christ.

In the book, Lee is interviewing various subject matter experts (Christian apologists) by cross-examining them as it relates to various topics of Jesus and the New Testament.

He asks some tough questions, while playing devils advocate, and those guys don't break or fold, answering every question like a BOSS.

After you read that, you will undoubtedly want to check out his other "The Case For.." books.

Good reads.

[Tcg]

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?

No.

Now that we've settled that. Care to address the fact that you made a false claim of victory?

[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?

No.

Now that we've settled that. Care to address the fact that you made a false claim of victory?

Victory is already mines..and the outcome is irreversible.

[Tcg]

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?

No.

Now that we've settled that. Care to address the fact that you made a false claim of victory?

Victory is already mines..and the outcome is irreversible.

Outside of the amusement factor, this claim is useless.

I ask you once again to address the fact that you made a false claim of victory. Shall I assume that your continued refusal to address it is your admission that you don't have the integrity to do so?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 23 by For_The_Kingdom]

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.

If we apply logic, then Jesus would have only needed one animal and asked for only one.

Matthew 21 King James Version (KJV)

21 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,

5 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.

6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

It looks very much like the author is suggesting that Jesus wanted to ride into Jerusalem and sent a couple of disciples into a village to steal an ass and a colt. Of course he advised them that if they get caught to just say the Lord needs them.

It is also quite clear that the actions taken were done in order to contrive the fulfillment of an alleged prophecy. It actually says that quite clearly: 4 "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled....". A pity that the author didn't get inspired correctly. Sometimes you just can't get a decent (holy) ghost writer when you need one.

[brianbbs67]

https://www.quora.com/Did-Jesus-ride-bo ... -Jerusalem

[polonius]

https://www.quora.com/Did-Jesus-ride-bo ... -Jerusalem

RESPONSE:

Yes. This is Matthew's biggest blunder. But perhaps a more accurate statement of the "prophecy" Matthew says Jesus was fulfilling can be found in the New Revised Standard Version.

“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.�

If you look it up, there is no "and" in the original prophecy. Matthew frequently changes prophecies so Jesus can be said to fulfill them,