Enough with the feigning ignorance bullshit. You know precisely what I am talking about, which just makes this all the more pathetic.
It's as if you think I'm saying NONE of it is hearsay
And out come the strawmen. What a shock. I mean, we all knew you never had any intention of actually conducting any kind of serious examination into any of this, so, again, my own damn fault for engaging cult members who believe magic is real who then pretend they want a serious, objective investigation into their cult beliefs, when of course they want nothing of the kind and pull all of this bullshit.
Neither Learner nor me (nor Matthew Levi himself) are claiming that Matthew was a witness to the Nativity.
You JUST confirmed that you do not have any evidence at all that the "Matthew" in GMatthew is in fact Matthew Levi, so until you can prove that assertion, you cannot use the name. Regardless, for the sake of argument, let's say you had sufficient evidence that it was, in fact, originally written by a guy named Matthew Levi AND you had corroborating evidence that it was
the Matthew Levi (i.e., an actual, original disciple).
Stick a pin in that for a second while I deal with your other bullshit about the Jesus Seminar.
I'll get you the Jesus Seminar citation links if you
You are in no position to make any conditions. You made the claim, now evidence it and let the evidence speak for itself. That's how it works.
Now, back to where we stand with GMatthew. Since we have no evidence for any of the others (and there were never disciples named "Mark" or "Luke" to begin with) we can throw out GLuke and GMark straight away as nothing more than hearsay accounts at best (if not total fabrications at worst, such as the tacked on ending of Mark). Toss them.
You can keep GMatthew for the moment, but you've sacrificed everything else as far as the passion narrative goes at the very least, which is, of course, the foundation of Christianity (along with Paul's subversion). GJohn is likewise thrown out for the same reason, but it's got
its own problems aside from hearsay and lack of corroboration as to who actually wrote it (in spite of certain
claims that have no evidence to the contrary).
So now the only possible "eyewitness" account that you supposedly have any compelling, reliable corroborating evidence for in regard to the PN is GMatthew, but, of course, as you stuffed in your strawman, not
everything he relates was something he personally witnessed. I mean, gosh and golly, no one would ever claim that every single word in the Bible was
true or anything.
So, great, now we're down to only selective things GMatthew writes about as things he could have personally witnessed. I guess we just have to wade through it the way we have already and throw out any of the hearsay in GMatthew and only accept--in our objective examination of possible evidence of Jesus--the things the author could have personally witnessed. That means we have to throw out chapters 1-4 right off the bat, of course, as it would not have been possible for him to be an eyewitness to any of those events.
Chapter 5 (as you indicated) would be where the G would have to start then for Matthew as eyewitness, as that's the Sermon on the Mount and therefore the first possible event that the author
could have been present for to eyewitness. Ok, so we have, at best, an account of a local Jewish rabbi--who is evidently popular enough to draw a crowd to begin with (bang goes Isaiah 53 again), telling people to rejoice in their oppression and suffering and stay meek and basically never do anything to change your lot in life, because the fact that you're all oppressed by the Romans means you're actually "blessed" by God. Fine, I have no problem believing that there were
all kinds of Jews preaching whatever they wanted to preach all over Jerusalem at that time.
So all we have here so far is a possible eyewitness to a Jewish "rabbi" telling his fellow Jews to suck Roman cock and be happy about it, because that's what their God wants them to do doubleplusgood. Seems like the wrong crowd for such clearly pro-Roman/anti-Jew nonsense, but for the sake of argument, fine, we have an eyewitness to a guy named Jesus talking about his thoughts on Judaism to a bunch of other Jews.
If you want to stop there for a moment and do a little victory dance, have at it, but again, ALL we have at this point is a
possible eyewitness telling us that he personally saw a Jewish rabbi talk about things like being meek and happy that you're suffering and the like and that's it. Pretty much.
But then we get into a serious problem with the subsequent chapters 6-9 at the very least, as they describe all of the various things and places Jesus does and travels to, but does this mean Matthew was
with him the whole time to be an eyewitness to all such events or is he once again engaging in hearsay? There is no indication in the text and we have, once again, problems like in 9:
32 While they were going out, a man who was demon-possessed and could not talk was brought to Jesus. 33 And when the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke. The crowd was amazed and said, “Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel.”
34 But the Pharisees said, “It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons.”
Obviously a
crowd wouldn't speak in unison, let alone the "Pharisees" and it is highly doubtful that Matthew would have been anywhere near a Pharisee in order to hear him say such a thing for it to be in any way a reliable direct quote.
Then in 10 we have this problem (emphasis mine):
2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
The bold is in reference to this section from 9:
The Calling of Matthew
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.
10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
Aside from the fact that the Pharisees seem to be omnipresent and really curious about what a homeless carpenter is doing, why does the author refer to himself in the third person like this? If the author is, in fact,
the Matthew in 9 and 10, then why in the world wouldn't he write in 9 something more like this:
9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw me sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told me, and I got up and followed him.
10 While Jesus was having dinner at my house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
Let me guess, literary "tradition"? Except that, Matthew was supposedly a
tax collector presumably recording for all of history his own personal experience with what he supposedly believed was the Son of Jehovah! Why in the world would a
tax collector write about himself in the third person like that, let alone give a shit about--or even be familiar with--any kind of literary trope or tradition?
So, now, in 10, we have an additional problem. Jesus is sending the twelve out on missions of their own, which necessarily would mean Matthew could not possibly be an eyewitness to anything the
other disciples do or Jesus anymore. Further,
he evidently grants them supernatural powers:
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.
Raise. The. Dead.
And yet, curiously, there is no further mention of Matthew having ever once
resurrected someone from death. One would think that this would have been a
monumental thing in a tax collector's life; to suddenly have the supernatural ability to raise anyone he wanted from the
dead! Like, you know, his friends or relatives or
anyone at all from the dead.
Nope. No mention of it. Nor any mention of any of the other eleven raising any of their family or loved ones from the dead. Or, MOST IMPORTANTLY, Jesus himself! Why in the world wouldn't every one of the disciples rushed to Jesus' tomb and heal him/resurrect him? They just figured, "He's got that covered. No worries."
And, the most obvious problem of all with such nonsense,
why aren't they all still alive today? If they each had the power to
raise the dead, then none of them would ever have to worry about dying as there were eleven others right nearby with the power to resurrect their asses, so unless they formed a soccer team and flew on a chartered plane over the Andes together, each and every one of them should be alive to this day.
And then shit suddenly and for no explicable reason gets
really fucked up:
16 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
24 “The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!
26 “So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.
40 “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. 41 Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. 42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”
Wow. That turned dark real fast. So the natural question would be, why? Why would anyone (a) give two shits about humble fishermen (and a tax collector) wandering around talking about Judaism in Judea, let alone seek to flog and bring them before "governors and kings" and (b) wtf is with all of that brother and father and children death and you have to love Jesus more than you love your own parents etc., etc., etc.?
Where does any of that suddenly come from? Just compare and contrast the Beatitudes with all of this sudden twist of darkness and extreme violence and for what reason? Because a homeless Jewish carpenter is doing what thousands of other Jews are also doing, preaching their own version of Judaism?
So, is he saying all of that because "governors and kings" have never before heard about the Essenes or the Sadducees or the Pharisees or any Jew ever arguing about Judaism before? And the "gentiles"? Why would gentiles wish to flog somebody standing on a corner in their little village talking about Judaism, let alone that they would start committing patricide, fratricide and infanticide, etc.?
Again, look at it from the perspective of a Roman citizen (or an average Jew), let alone "governors and kings." To them, Jesus is just another Jewish rabbi, at best. A humble, homeless carpenter who was claiming--as no doubt many hundreds of people were claiming and/or had claimed--to be a Jewish "messiah."
CLAIMING to be. Not actually was. At least insofar as any Roman or Jew would have been concerned. And what he was teaching was in no way threatening to anyone, in particular the Romans and the "governors and kings" nor ANY JEW.
Again, there were at least four massive Jewish sects all teaching different versions of Judaism with millions of Jews in the world all debating their own personal opinions on exactly what Judaism meant to each and every one of them.
There is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount (or elsewhere in GMatthew) that in way would be new or threatening to anyone in power in that region.
Even if Jesus were "the" messiah then he wouldn't have needed to gather ANY disciples--nor grant them magical powers--nor do any of the shit he supposedly does and he certainly would never have preached any of the things he supposedly preached. "The" messiah that the Jews imagined was God's warrior whose job it was to basically kill everyone not worthy of God's presence on earth. He wasn't sent to walk around in sandals and sing kumbaya; he was sent with the power to wipe out all of the Jews' enemies and basically prepare the earth for GOD to arrive.
He was the terminator, not a hippy love child. That's precisely what all of that brother against brother shit was all about and (suddenly) coming not to bring peace but a sword, but the actual messiah would have simple done all those things. He would have no need for "disciples" or anything like that or secrecy and special signs or preaching anything at all.
If Jehovah had sent a messiah then it would have meant he'd just wipe out everyone evil with fire.
But I digress.
So, back to what could (or could not) be eyewitness account. So in 10, we have all of the above incongruous nonsense and the twelve or sent out into the world, presumably each on their own. So 11 can't be eyewitness:
Jesus and John the Baptist
1 After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee.
So toss out 11, which would include:
Woe on Unrepentant Towns
20 Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”
Which is strange, because "most of his miracles" included, you know, resurrecting the dead.
So if resurrecting the dead did not convince any of the people in any of the towns where "most of his miracles had been performed" then clearly there was no worry whatsoever about him being a threat to any one in power.
Generally speaking, if someone raised your loved ones from the dead and you said, "Eh, that's not impressive, I don't care, I'm not going to repent." Then that's the game.
But back to hearsay and throwing it out, like this in 11 too:
The Father Revealed in the Son
25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.
27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
So throw all of that out, because Matthew wasn't there to personally hear him say any of that which brings us to 12:
Jesus Is Lord of the Sabbath
12 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
There are those omnipresent "Pharisees" (plural) again, speaking in unison. It's remarkable how these guys had nothing else to do, but follow Jesus everywhere he went in order to make snide remarks.
And then here's another curious thing in 12:9-13:
9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”
11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.
Why, exactly, was he even allowed into their synagogue? And why, after presumably watching him physically restore a man's shriveled hand do they immediately start plotting how they might kill Jesus?
It makes absolutely no sense, just as it makes absolutely no sense that presumably thousands of people having witnessed Jesus doing shit like raising their loved ones from the dead didn't think anything about it and wouldn't repent and the like.
So, either none of that shit happened, or everyone in the area was so familiar with their dead loved ones resurrecting and people being able to heal the crippled and the sick and the like, that these things were NOT considered to be miracles at all. Common place, in fact.
And then we get to the misunderstanding about Beelzebub and finally to one of the most curious Phrarisees (always plural) comments:
38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”
39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
Matthew had just spent several pages describing all of the miracles Jesus (and his disciples) had supposedly performed all over the fucking place AND the Pharisees had just witnessed him heal a crippled man, yet now they are saying the want to see "a sign from you"? What, again, were all those unimpressive miracles like resurrection if not numerous signs?
And why does Jesus suddenly get angry and say, "NO SOUP FOR YOU!" He just performed a miracle by healing the guy's hand and he granted his disciple supernatural powers to go out and spread the word, and now suddenly it's a "wicked and adulterous generation" that asks for a sign? What does that even mean? "Adulterous"? Where does that come from and what does that have to do with anything?
And then we come to 13 with this little bit (a common refrain throughout Matthew no less; emphasis mine):
That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore.
Once again, so much for Isaiah 53.
And then there's a whole bunch of parable nonsense about secret knowledge and weeds and wheat and we get to the end of 13 with this contradictory bit (emphasis mine):
A Prophet Without Honor
53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.
What? Why? And why are they impressed by the "miraculous powers" but no one else in all of Judea is? And then Jesus says:
But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”
58 And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.
What the hell does that mean and why would he have done any miracles? Weren't those "signs"? Weren't they also part of the "wicked and adulterous generation" that seeks signs?
There's more, of course, but enough for now. We haven't even tackled the big shit with the trial that could not have ever happened the way it is depicted.
The point being that even if you take 5 at face value, there is more than enough in the rest of the book to prove that whoever the author of Matthew was, he could not possibly have been witnessing anything that actually happened or, again, he would be alive to this day along with the other 11 at the very least, due to their powers of resurrection. Unless those were just temporary or something? Maybe, since they didn't work even for Jesus to convince anyone that he was their messiah and they'd better repent boy oh boy! Ooh, is Jehovah going to be pissed at you for not repenting when Jesus gave you all those signs!
Why, Jehovah might actually send a divine messenger down to kill you all with fire. Oh. Wait....
, and I may continue to comment, but my instinct is, and always has been, to trod the path of higher criticism and analyze rather than harmonize.