There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Subduction Zone]

About the original Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, the same Encyclopedia says:

Yes, Papias appears to have claimed that Matthew wrote down an account in Hebrew. But that does not support Matthew as being the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Once again it can be told by how it was written that it was originally written in Greek and not in Hebrew.

Here is the quote of Papias that the claim that Matthew wrote an account is based upon:

"Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could."

Papias of Hierapolis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Writing that Matthew wrote a record in Hebrew only supports that he wrote a record in Hebrew. The Gospel itself tells us that it was not written in Hebrew.

 

[Berserk]

Q: Why would Matthew, an eyewitness copy 90% of Mark, who is not an euewitness?
A. Mark records Peter's catechetical notes and thus represents Peter's memours.
Matthew wrote a sayings collection in Hebrew/ Aramaic, the source of sayings scholars label Q.
The editor of Matthew used the apostle Matthew's sayings source and Mark, but is not himself an eyewitness.
The Gospel of Matthew is originally written in Greek, Q in Hebrew/ Aramaic. Note: Both Aramaic and Hebrew are translated by "Hebrew" in Greek. Aramaic is a Hebrew dialect.

 

[Eli G]

Again, with some personal editing for clarity:

External evidence to the effect that Matthew originally wrote this Gospel in Hebrew reaches as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century C.E. Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16)

Early in the third century, Origen made reference to Matthew’s account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the “first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6)

The scholar Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) wrote in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, that Matthew “composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”—Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series “Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur,” Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8, 9.

 

[Eli G]

...Matthew... copy 90% of Mark...

That is FALSE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, with some personal editing for clarity:

External evidence to the effect that Matthew originally wrote this Gospel in Hebrew reaches as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century C.E. Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16)

Early in the third century, Origen made reference to Matthew’s account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the “first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6)

The scholar Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) wrote in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, that Matthew “composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”—Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series “Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur,” Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8, 9.

And I gave you the Papias quote. It did not help you. Linguistic analysis of the "Gospel of Matthew" shows that it was originally written in the Kone Greek that the oldest copies of it are written in. It was not written in Hebrew and translated. There would be signs of that. The Papias quote only shows that Matthew wrote and account but tells us nothing of it. There we perhaps on the order of 100 gospels at one point. Matthew's would have just been one of many but it was not what we call "Matthew" today.

And how does Origen help you at all? You are now so far away from the original you are only going by church tradition and not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is FALSE.

Then why is that the opinion of almost all biblical scholars? You know, people that study the history of the time and can read in the original Koine Greek? And even Hebrew or Aramaic if necessary? You need to remember that the JW's avoid actual scholarship.

 

[Eli G]

The same Encyclopedia says:

Information Unique to Matthew’s Gospel. An examination of Matthew’s account shows that more than 40 percent of the material contained therein is not found in the other three Gospels. Unique is Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:1-16), which takes an approach different from that set out by Luke (Lu 3:23-38). A comparison of the two indicates that Matthew gave the legal genealogy through Jesus’ adoptive father Joseph, while Luke apparently gave Jesus’ natural genealogy. Other incidents mentioned only in Matthew’s account are: Joseph’s reaction to Mary’s pregnancy, the appearance of an angel to Joseph in a dream (Mt 1:18-25), the visit of the astrologers, the flight to Egypt, the slaughter of the young boys in Bethlehem and its districts (chap 2), and the dream of Pilate’s wife regarding Jesus (27:19).
At least ten parables, or illustrations, found in Matthew’s account are not mentioned in the other Gospels. These include four in chapter 13, those of the weeds in the field, the hidden treasure, the “one pearl of high value,” and the dragnet. Others are the illustrations of the unmerciful slave (Mt 18:23-35), the workers in the vineyard (20:1-16), the marriage of the king’s son (22:1-14), the ten virgins (25:1-13), and the talents (25:14-30).
At times Matthew provides supplementary details. Although material from the Sermon on the Mount also appears in Luke’s account (Lu 6:17-49), Matthew’s Gospel is far more extensive in this respect. (Mt 5:1–7:29) Whereas Mark, Luke, and John mention the miraculous feeding of about 5,000 men, Matthew adds “besides women and young children.” (Mt 14:21; Mr 6:44; Lu 9:14; Joh 6:10) Matthew mentions two demon-possessed men encountered by Jesus in the country of the Gadarenes, while Mark and Luke refer to only one. (Mt 8:28; Mr 5:2; Lu 8:27) Matthew also tells of two blind men being healed on an occasion, whereas Mark and Luke mention only one. (Mt 20:29, 30; Mr 10:46, 47; Lu 18:35, 38) Of course, all the writers were correct in that at least one person was involved in each incident. But Matthew was often more explicit as to number. This perhaps is to be attributed to his former occupation as a tax collector.

I wonder why those "scholars" (of certain people) don't tell them certain relevant info they need to know.

 

[Esteban X]

That is FALSE.

You are right. In total 97% of Mark is duplicated in Matthew

How Editorial Fatigue Shows That Matthew and Luke Copied Mark

Church taught me to read the Gospels separately while assuming they all told the same story. Higher criticism, however, has taught me to read the Gospels together while letting them speak for thems…

isthatinthebible.wordpress.com

 

[We Never Know]

That is FALSE.

"In the chart below(see link) you can see the small (3%) slice of material that is only found in Mark, the equally small material (3%) that is found in only Mark and Luke, the slightly larger set of material found in only Mark and Matthew (18%) and the fairly substantial amount of material found in all three gospels–76% of Mark overlaps with 41% and 46% of Luke and Matthew respectively."

The Synoptics: Mark, Matthew, and Luke – Reading the Bible as Literature: a Journey

minnstate.pressbooks.pub

 

[Subduction Zone]

The same Encyclopedia says:

I wonder why those "scholars" (of certain people) don't tell them certain relevant info they need to know.

What makes you think that they are unaware of the facts that you do not understand?

 

[Eli G]

The same Biblical Encyclopedia teaches:

Some Unique Features of Mark’s Account. Though largely covering material similar to that of Matthew and Luke, Mark also provides supplementary details. Some of these illuminate how Jesus felt about certain things. He was ‘grieved at the insensibility of the hearts’ of persons who objected to his healing a man’s withered hand on the Sabbath. (Mr 3:5) When Jesus received a poor reception from people in his home territory, “he wondered at their lack of faith.” (6:6) And he “felt love” for the rich young man who asked about the requirements for gaining everlasting life.—10:21.
Also unique with Mark’s account are certain points regarding the end of Jesus’ earthly life. He reports that at Jesus’ trial the false witnesses were not in agreement. (Mr 14:59) The passerby impressed into service to carry Jesus’ torture stake was Simon of Cyrene, “the father of Alexander and Rufus.” (15:21) And Mark relates that Pilate made sure that Jesus was dead before granting permission for Joseph of Arimathea to take the body for burial.—15:43-45.
One of the four illustrations of Jesus found in Mark’s Gospel is unique. (Mr 4:26-29) The account mentions at least 19 miracles performed by Jesus Christ. Two of these (the healing of a deaf man who also had a speech impediment and the cure of a certain blind man) are contained only in Mark’s Gospel.—Mr 7:31-37; 8:22-26.

Speculators about Mark's "copyists" seem to have failed to notice the differences between the three synoptic gospels. They also seem to have failed to notice that one was written for Christians of Jewish origin in Judea (Matthew), another for Romans from Rome (Mark), and the third for other general readers, with a slightly more "intellectual" style for other, more exquisite Gentiles (Luke).

 

[Eli G]

As seen, not only do these three evangelists (out of the four) offer different details even when they describe the same event, but each also includes events not found in the other two. While it is possible that some of them, like Luke, who mentioned gathering previously collected information, may have read an earlier gospel, it is clear that each one authored his own account and was not merely repeating the work of another evangelist.

Furthermore, despite the speculation from Bible critics about the existence of hundreds of "gospels" (and acknowledging that some false accounts may exist), it is certain that only four were considered inspired from the beginning. These are the same four gospels found in our Bibles today. Ancient catalogues confirm this, and a harmony known to have been created by a Assyrian Christian apologist in the middle of the 2nd century, the Diatessaron by Tatian, where he compares the four known gospels.

Why do anti-Bible scholars conceal so much relevant information from their followers?

 

[ppp]

Why do anti-Bible scholars conceal so much relevant information from their followers

You got it backwards. Most of the biblical scholars who disagree with you are believers in Jesus and in God. They just know more than you and they don't have to make stuff up to maintain their beliefs.

 

[Eli G]

Those who believe in evolution cannot truly call themselves Christians, as Jesus affirmed that Adam and Eve were real individuals.

By letting atheists sway them from their faith, they have also entertained false speculations about the Bible’s historicity, chronology, and reliability. I cannot take seriously any opinion from these so-called "Christians" who have allowed themselves to be misled.

"Textual Criticism" and "Higher Criticism" are entirely different matters. The first focuses on analyzing texts realistically and without bias, whereas "Higher Criticism" aims to challenge the divine inspiration of the Bible, often seeking to mock the Christian Scriptures and the believers' trust in them.

A true Christian understands this distinction.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Those who believe in evolution cannot truly call themselves Christians, as Jesus affirmed that Adam and Eve were real individuals.

That's a bit like saying "true" Christians have to believe the earth is flat since the Bible calls the earth a circle rather than a sphere.

 

[Brian2]

It is. But rational thought and proper skepticism does oppose it.

Yes skepticism does take a leap of faith beyond what science can tell us.

Scientists do not say that. They point out that there is no reliable evidence that God did anything and they put the burden of proof upon theists if they want to make such claims. Far too many people misinterpret showing that God was not needed for a particular event as an attempt to refute God.

There is evidence for God but just not the sort that science can use. Science does not attempt to show that God was not needed and science cannot show that.

Properly if one is a theist and a scientist one would view it as getting answers to how God did it.

Why? Why is science always right in what is, at times just educated guesses at what might have happened.

 

[Brian2]

That is not quite accurate. The council of Jerusalem determined that Gentile believers in Jesus did not need to become Jews, meaning to be circumcised and come under the law. It never said anything about Jewish believers not needing to observe the Law.

Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” 6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

The way I read it, the Jews who become Christians are admitting that they are not saved from their sins through keeping the law, but also rely on the grace of the Lord Jesus for that.
They can try to keep the letter of the Law if they want of course.

 

[Brian2]

I'll defer to you concerning ChatGPT.

I'll also suggest that by "good theologians" you mean "those who disagree with me."

No, I'm not a good theologian, but I can sometimes see elementary mistakes that people have made imo.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

That's a bit like saying "true" Christians have to believe the earth is flat since the Bible calls the earth a circle rather than a sphere.

It astonishes me that there are Christians who believe in a flat earth, but that's not as strange as the ones who either believe that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark and coexisted with human beings or that Satan planted dinosaur bones around the world to confuse mankind and lead them away from God.

For example, take a look at these articles.

How Do Creationists Explain Dinosaurs?

I Grew Up Believing The Earth Was Flat And Dinosaurs Were Planted To Test Our Faith

Dinosaurs: Their Creation, Cohabitation with Humans, and Extinction according to the Bible

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes skepticism does take a leap of faith beyond what science can tell us.

Nope, you do not understand skepticism. Skepticism is just following the evidence.

There is evidence for God but just not the sort that science can use. Science does not attempt to show that God was not needed and science cannot show that.

That is the claim, but I have never seen proper evidence supplied to support such a belief. I have seen all sorts of bad evidence. So let me make my statement about skepticism clearer. Skeptics follow only reliable evidence. And science does not "try" to show that a god is not needed, but that is often the results of scientific advances.

Why? Why is science always right in what is, at times just educated guesses at what might have happened.

Science is not always right. But it is far more than educated guesses. It is knowledge that is repeatedly tested. That allows errors to be discovered and corrected. It is a pity that no religion follows the scientific method. It is almost as if people know that their gods do not exist. It would be interesting to see if someone found a way to test and refute or confirm (remembering that confirmation is not absolute proof) of religious claims. By the way, you cannot have confirmation of any value without a way to refute.