Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?

You're the one who seems to want everyone to notice your ass shaking around rather than your head.

Or, perhaps the author thought that it would lend credibility to it actually being written by Matthew. Clearly, it worked. Believing something to be true and it actually being true are different things altogether. And the evidence for this is? Them not knowing he wasn't the author doesn't mean he IS the author.

---

I hunt for the truth

This text is written by the Easter Bunny, follow my commands, as I know the way!Upon days when thou findest eggs, doth not think they commeth from the chicken, or from other feathery creatures hopping or flying around. NAY! They art put there by the one that knows the way, me!These were the words of the Easter Bunny, follow my commands, as I know the way!Can you see what I did there Jaywill? Just because some text claims it was written by such and such, doesn't mean it actually IS.

---

I hunt for the truth

Yea man. Boy am I having trouble. I mean I have to go so far as to get up and walk across the room and look up some information on the Gospel of Matthew.Who named it. I don't know.Irenaeus (c. 130 - 202 AD) sited it as authentic, meaning he regarded Matthew as the author.Source: a chart "The New Testament Canon During the First Four Centries" I believe by Norm Giesler.Our record of Matthew having been cited as apostolic liturature between 70 - 130 ADFurthermore no major church scholar sited it as a disputed book as far down as the council of Carthage in 419 AD.Now you tell me when the book of Matthew was first considered in question as to authenticity please.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Yea. And I bet just because your mom says she's your mom doesn't mean she actually is either.Find me the date as best you can of the first recorded DOUBT that Matthew was not written by Matthew. I bet you can't go back more than a couple of hundred years.But in the second century Irenaeus (c. 130 -202) listed it as authentic. And as far as the 5th century AD we see no church father naming it in a list of questionable apostolic books.So most trusted Dr. Johnny Come Lately, when did New Testament scholars first begin to raise doubts? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If the only thing I have is her word, then no, I wouldn't just accept that. Fortunately for me (and her ), she has a whole bunch of evidence to show me. And if all else fails, there's always a DNA test to see if she's telling the truth or not, but the evidence I have seen so far has convinced me she is in fact my mother. Should there ever come a time when I doubt that, I'm sure to get that DNA test. And this is relevant how? Belief that something is true is not evidence that it's true. Irenaeus was second century, LATE second century. Further he was a Christian, somehow I don't think he'd say the gospels were false. Of course the Church isn't going to claim that their own books are false, you can't build a religion that way. I'd say somewhere around the 18th century or so. Again, I fail to see how this is relevant. Either one has evidence that shows them to be authentic and true, or one does not. In the first case, no harm done, in the second, why claim them as true and authentic?

---

I hunt for the truth

Gday,Jaywill - you were challenged to provide some information :So who named the Gospel and what was the date when it was named?
Are you having trouble finding this basic information Jay? Then
you crack a joke about how easy it is to find the information.
But then you FAIL AGAIN to provide the information !?
Is this some sort of a joke ? So your walk across the room failed utterly?
So you ARE still having trouble answering this basic question.
The first to explicitly name G.Matthew was Irenaeus. Why do apologists misleadingly give the BIRTH DATE? Irenaeus wrote in the 180s. The very first writer to name the four Gospels - a century and a half after the alleged events.You note that Irenaeus cited G.Matthew, but cannot seem to admit he was the first to do so by name. Your walk across the room failed in that too. There is no such record.
No Christian writer refers to G.Matthew by name in this period at all.80s - Colossians, 1 John, James - NO mention of G.Matthew
90s - Ephesians, 2 Thess., 1 Peter, 1 Clement, Revelation
100s, 110s - Didakhe, Jude, Barnabas
120s - 2,3 John, Apoc.Peter, Secret James, Preach.Peter, Quadratus
130s - 2 Peter, Pastorals, G.Peter, HermasThere is NOT ONE cite of G.Matthew by any of these writers in the period 70-130 (No, Clement does not cite G.Matthew.)(Papias does refer to a writing by Matthew, but in Hebrew, not called a Gospel.)In sum -
the first to cite Matthew as writing our G.Matthew was Irenaeus in the 180s.
Until then it was ANONYMOUS.Kapyong

My understanding is that Irenaeus only agreed with Papias that Matthew had written in Aramaic (or Hebrew). He does not identify the author of the Gospel now called "Matthew" - which was most likely written in Greek and derived from Mark (itself second-hand).

quote:

---

Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham; " and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise."

---

That matches up with Matt 1:1 and Matt 1:18

Gday Paul,Well, here are the words of Irenaeus :Matthew also published a gospel in writing among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter & Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome. But after their death, Mark, the disciple & interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what Peter used to preach. And Luke, Paul's associate, also set down in a book the gospel that Paul used to preach. Later, John, the Lord's disciple --- the one who lay on his lap --- also set out the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia Minor. (Against Heresies 3.1.1)He also specifically refers to G.Matthew :Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. And, he also makes many allusions and specific quotes of G.Matthew.So in sum - Irenaeus :
* explicitly names 'Matthew' as writing a Gospel,
* explicitly uses the phrase "Gospel according to Matthew"
* frequently quotes and cites G.Matthew
* in his own writing.
But :
* he claims Matthew wrote in Hebrew (our modern G.Matthew was written in Greek.)I would agree he doesn't actually identify Matthew as a specific person; but it's clear he knew the name Matthew and knew the Gospel of Matthew and that Matthew was the (claimed) author.The weak point in my argument as Irenaeus being first would be Papias c.130 :
* he does name Matthew as doing writings
* but does not use the word "Gospel"
* but does not give any quotes
* we don't have his actual works (just Eusebius' words about him)So Papias is not usually considered evidence for our G.Matthew, but Irenaeus is.Kapyong

Jaywill wrote: "You're the one who seems to want everyone to notice your ass shaking around rather than your head."Not sure what this means. Not sure I want to know, either. Not sure if I've been told off or asked out.

Huntard wrote: "This text is written by the Easter Bunny, follow my commands, as I know the way!"Huntard, are you saying there is no Easter Bunny or that Jaywill has lost his marbles? This is some funnie stuff.

The interesting point is that Irenaeus does not mention a Greek gospel of Matthew, but DOES know of the Greek document that we call "Matthew". So we cannot say that he attributed our "Matthew" to Matthew, and if anything, it is more likely that he attributed it to someone else entirely (or has no knowledge of its authorship).

I was trying to point out that a text claiming to be written by someone is not evidence that that someone actually wrote the text. And since I assumed we all know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, I used him (her, it?) as an example. Glad you liked it.Oh, and I noticed you don't use the quote boxes. Check out this link to see how that is done, or use the peek button on the bottom right of my post to see how I did it. This will improve the look of your posts, and advance easy reading.

---

I hunt for the truth

O.k., Jay, three questions for you.1. Roughly what year did Paul die?2. Was 'Luke' the author of Luke and Acts?3. When were Luke and Acts written?Make it four.4. Was 'Luke' the companion of Paul AND the writer of Luke and Acts?