Banjo P,

<<Nobody knows for sure who the Matthew of the bible was. Nowhere does he claim to have been an eyewitness to the events that he describes. According to the historians, the gospel attributed to him seems to have been composed around the year 85 A.D., i.e., more than half a century after the death of Jesus.>>

You have chosen to slam the Gospel of Matthew because I cited Jesus from Matthew 19:4-6. HOWEVER, the same message of heterosexual union is taught by the Apostle Paul in his writing to the Ephesians 5:31, 'A man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'. Don't forget it was taught first in Genesis 2:24, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen+2%3A24&version=ESVUK

Your ramblings about Matthew have nothing to do with the subject about which I wrote, so your comment is a Red Herring Fallacy of erroneous reasoning. See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red_Herring.

This means that by denigrating the Gospel of Matthew (which was not the topic of my article), you attempted to redirect our discussion to what you wanted to discuss. Yours was a deliberate diversion from my topic, with your intention of trying to abandon the original arguments I put forth in my article.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

« You have chosen to slam the Gospel of Matthew because I cited Jesus from Matthew 19:4-6 … »
.

I did not decide to “slam” the Gospel of Matthew, OzSpen. When anybody cites an author as an authority on a topic under discussion, I usually try to find out who that author is and what his qualifications are.

I had no preconceived ideas about the author of the Gospel of Matthew. I had no idea who he was, though, naturally, I had heard of the “Gospel of Matthew” since my childhood.

But, as I no longer take such things for granted, I did what I usually do in such cases. I did some research on “Matthew” before according credence to what he claims to be a verbatim quote of Jesus :

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
.

Naturally, I was surprised to discover that nobody knows for sure who the Matthew of the bible was. That nowhere does he claim to have been an eyewitness to the events that he describes. And that the gospel attributed to him seems to have been composed around the year 85 A.D., i.e., more than half a century after the death of Jesus.

Those are the facts as I understand them, OzSpen. They obviously do not plead in favour of the credibility of the author. Simply evoking them here can hardly be construed as “choosing to slam the Gospel of Matthew” or “denigrating” it.

On the contrary, failing to mention them or pretending they do not exist, could be considered dishonest. They should, at least, be evoked and discussed openly and frankly.

Do you not agree ?

.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You also wrote :

« Your ramblings about Matthew have nothing to do with the subject about which I wrote, so your comment is a Red Herring Fallacy of erroneous reasoning … This means that by denigrating the Gospel of Matthew (which was not the topic of my article), you attempted to redirect our discussion to what you wanted to discuss. Yours was a deliberate diversion from my topic, with your intention of trying to abandon the original arguments I put forth in my article »
.

I trust that my previous post allays the fears you expressed that I sought to “denigrate” the Gospel of Matthew in an earlier post.

Allow me now to assure you that the only reason I made no comment on the rest of your article was that I see it simply as a narrative relating the confrontation of different beliefs : those of Margaret Court, Peter FitzSimons (speaking on behalf of Tennis Australia), and yourself.

As I already indicated on another thread here on OLO, I respect the sincerity of personal belief, whatever the domain, and whoever may express it – however incredible or ridiculous it may appear to me.

I have nothing to add to that – apart, perhaps, from observing (for the umpteenth time) that what you refer to on this occasion as your “original arguments” (and, on other occasions, as “facts” or “evidence”) are simply quotes from the bible – in other words, your personal “beliefs”.

But don’t worry, OzSpen, I think I’m beginning to understand you now and I accept you as you are – just as I accept Runner as he is.

There’s something reassuring about being predictable.

.

Banjo P,

<<I was surprised to discover that nobody knows for sure who the Matthew of the bible was. That nowhere does he claim to have been an eyewitness to the events that he describes. And that the gospel attributed to him seems to have been composed around the year 85 A.D., i.e., more than half a century after the death of Jesus.>>

'Nobody knows for sure' is your statement and not based on the scholarship on my shelves. All 4 gospels are anonymous. None begins with words such as, 'Matthew, the apostle, to the Jewish Christians of Palestine'. Mark 3:16-19 lists Jesus' disciples, one of whom was Matthew who would have been an eyewitness to what Jesus said and did. Did the Apostle Matthew write the Gospel?

Your research leaves a lot to be desired. We discover from the writings of the early church fathers, Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, John Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine that Matthew wrote the Gospel. Irenaeus (ca. 130-202) wrote: 'Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church' (Against Heresies, Bk 3, ch 1.1), http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

Who was Irenaeus? 'As a child he heard and saw Polycarp, the last known living connection with the Apostles, in Smyrna, before that aged Christian was martyred in 155' (Encyclopaedia Britannica), http://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Irenaeus.

I suggest you need to come up to speed with your knowledge of the Bible and church history.

Banjo P,

<<I have nothing to add to that – apart, perhaps, from observing (for the umpteenth time) that what you refer to on this occasion as your “original arguments” (and, on other occasions, as “facts” or “evidence”) are simply quotes from the bible – in other words, your personal “beliefs”.>>

I would have accepted that view when I first became a Christian in the early 1960s. Now that is not my approach to the Bible and its evidence - not 'evidence'. The Bible of both Old Testament and New Testament has been shown over and over to consist of reliable, trustworthy documents, investigated by archaeologists, ancient historians and other researchers.

Regarding Jesus, see, ‘Jesus of Nazareth: How Historians Can Know Him And Why It Matters’ Craig L. Blomberg, pg7, (This essay is Copyright © 2008 by Christ on Campus Initiative). Accessed via http://legacy.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/cci/jesus_of_nazareth_how_historians_can_know_him_and_why_it_matters

Sir William Ramsay, who initially approached the Book of Acts with disbelief, eventually changed his mind. He stated: 'I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts] ... but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth' (Sir William Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen 1982:8). Ramsay was an archaeologist and former biblical sceptic. See: http://forthright.net/2017/12/05/sir-william-ramsay-and-luke-the-historian/

I've searched archaeology and history relating to Scripture and found them to be trustworthy, beyond reasonable doubt. When I go to these credible documents I find the facts and evidence for creation, world-wide flood of Noah's day, God's dealing with Israel, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and how Christians should live,(New Testament letters).

In John's Gospel, we have Jesus' appeal to all of us: 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life' (John 3:16).

It is on that factual foundation that I base my faith.

Banjo P,

I've now discovered the link I gave you to Craig Blomberg's article gives an error message, ‘Jesus of Nazareth: How Historians Can Know Him And Why It Matters’ Craig L. Blomberg, pg7, (This essay is Copyright © 2008 by Christ on Campus Initiative). Accessed via http://legacy.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/cci/jesus_of_nazareth_how_historians_can_know_him_and_why_it_matters.

Here is a link that should work: http://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/jesus-of-nazareth-how-historians-can-know-him-and-why-it-matters-by-craig-blomberg/