The Gospel of Matthew (soul, churches, prophet, priest)

[yydanay515]

I know to some Christians it is the height of audacity for unbelievers to even dare question the contents of the Bible. For many it is a simple fact that it is the word of God - end of story. According to the circular argument, it is the word of God because it says it is the word of God. This means it is perfect truth.

I have also maintained the idea that the biblical writers had their various agendas and wrote within them accordingly. Many scholars believed the writer of the Book of Matthew wrote his Gospel to the Jews. It was his intent to promote Jesus as the true Jewish messiah perhaps during a time when many others were claiming to be. He apparently set out to do this at all costs even if he had to use creative license to do so. If it can be proven he used dishonesty to further an agenda, then it stands to reason he nor the other writers can be taken seriously.

Each year in churches here and there, the story of Jesus' birth is told and celebrated. Some ministers will tell their audiences that the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem was predicted in the Old Testament by the prophet Micah according to the book of Matthew (in fairness, the writer of Matthew does not make the statement per se. It was the priest and scribes). However, upon closer inspection of Micah chapter 5 and with a correct historical context, it becomes evident that the prophet Micah, 700 years before Jesus, was NOT speaking of Jesus or predicting anyone beyond his time. The prophet, living in the days of the Assyrian siege of King Hezekiah's Jerusalem, stepped forward to give a prediction that a hero would rise from the family clan of Bethlehem-Ephratath (yes, both were actual people) or perhaps the towns that bore their names and deliver Judah. As far as we can tell, no such hero came forth and Judah was delivered from the Assyrian threat by some other miracle.

While Christians often focus on Micah chapter 5:2 in claiming that verse predicts Jesus, verse 5 actually places this hero in a historical context. We are told he will actually be the one who would lead the Jews to victory against the Assyrians, a people who long ceased to exist 700 years BEFORE Jesus.

In another passage of Matthew he claims that Herod executed infants in Judah in the hope he would kill the baby Jesus who he thought would take his throne. This massacre is not mentioned in any of the other Gospels nor in any other historical accounts including the work of the Jewish historian, Josephus, who wrote abut Herod and all his evil deeds extensively. The writer of Matthew wanted his readers to believe Herod's phantom massacre of Judah's infants was a fulfillment of some prediction in the book of Jeremiah. On closer observation, Jeremiah was speaking of the Jews of his day. There is not one shred of evidence he was predicting something 600 years later.

The writer gets even more ridiculous later in his book, but that's for another day.

[KrisKr]

Originally Posted by yydanay515

I have also maintained the idea that the biblical writers had their various agendas and wrote within them accordingly. Many scholars believed the writer of the Book of Matthew wrote his Gospel to the Jews. It was his intent to promote Jesus as the true Jewish messiah perhaps during a time when many others were claiming to be. He apparently set out to do this at all costs even if he had to use creative license to do so. If it can be proven he used dishonesty to further an agenda, then it stands to reason he nor the other writers can be taken seriously.

As far as we can tell, no such hero came forth and Judah was delivered from the Assyrian threat by some other miracle.

While Christians often focus on Micah chapter 5:2 in claiming that verse predicts Jesus, verse 5 actually places this hero in a historical context. We are told he will actually be the one who would lead the Jews to victory against the Assyrians, a people who long ceased to exist 700 years BEFORE Jesus.

In another passage of Matthew he claims that Herod executed infants in Judah in the hope he would kill the baby Jesus who he thought would take his throne. This massacre is not mentioned in any of the other GospelsThe writer gets even more ridiculous later in his book, but that's for another day.

Yes, if Matthew had an agenda (bla, bla..) to consider the mercy of God over anything Man had in store in the valience of his courage; that was a condition of Man which came from the personality of the particular evangelist author. This author was interested in portraying the life of Jesus in terms of tolerance of leaders and citizens alike, probably (I believe) devoting the attitude to foolish preference in fellow working challenges (just for the choice of it and that in the midst of Matter) which beared people for their favor not to be involved.

We recognise organized religion in Matthew for the miraculous thing it was: an opportunity to belong to getting away with something for something any old work won't do.

The agenda if you like is transfigured if you like to conditions which are matter and soul distinct and made aware for deciding that you wished you were born, and if not your life's existence is a purely accidental agendum.

On the other hand, Koestler, in the Watershed, said life would have to be an accident only if the whole universe were to make sense in utter principle of indifference; which it so often seems to.

[b. frank]

Originally Posted by yydanay515

If it can be proven he used dishonesty to further an agenda, then it stands to reason he nor the other writers can be taken seriously.

It can't ever be proven that Matthew and the others were less than honest in their writing - but I believe that they wrote dishonestly.
You can see many occasions in history when people used dishonesty to promote a cause that they believed in. I think Matthew may have thought that it was for the greater good that he be dishonest. Can't prove it, though.