I’m not trying to convince myself of anything. I’m just trying to be as faithful as possible in interpreting the text as it is given to us without bringing the imaginations of men and giving life to Jewish fables.
I have no axe to grind.
Matthew....as well as the others...had no idea that the Sabbaths and Feast Days would be attacked and vilified later on by the "Imperial Church of Rome" in its zeal to erase anything "Jewish" from its liturgy.
Well, it is part of your theory that the old covenant feast days are still appropriative for the Christ’s body, the Church, and that therefore they have been "attacked and vilified". You are the one the needs to enforce this theory and so you go looking for the most obscure, debatable points to try and make it.
You even go so far as to say that Matthew didn’t tell us all he needed to tell us.
I happen to believe that Matthew (actually God) was not being short-sighted when he wrote what he did in the gospel that bears His name. I believe that God has providentially preserved the text for us exactly as we need it to be preserved. I don’t believe we need to invent theories of a Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew with lost/silent teachings in order to make theological points.
IOW, I don’t need to go down the tenuous route that you seem is necessary to follow in order to come to your preconceived conclusions.
Could you point out some of those Jewish fables to me....so we'll know exactly what it is you're referring to?
Well, it is part of your theory that the old covenant feast days are still appropriative for the Christ’s body, the Church, and that therefore they have been "attacked and vilified".
Maybe....here also, you could tell me where they were done away with.....so we'll then know that my theory holds no water. If I am using obscure, debatable points to enforce my beliefs....then you should have no problem coming up with clear scripture showing that the Festivals and Sabbaths were eliminated.
You even go so far as to say that Matthew didn’t tell us all he needed to tell us.
Well.....we all know that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew. We also know that there are no Hebrews copies in existence. Are you sure Matthew's entire Gospel has been made available.... as he wrote it?
This was your original statement: Given the care with which Matthew uses the OT to confirm the Messiah ship of Jesus, surely he would have quoted from the OT to demonstrate something as significant as the feast day theory if any such passage existed.
This was my response: One of the problems we have always had is the fact that Matthew was written in the Hebrew.....of which no original text exists.....only Greek copies. We're not sure if what we have......is the entire story. Post #135
Now....if you are positive that the Matthew we have is a faithful representation of the original Hebrew....please answer this question regarding this verse:
[Matthew 28:19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
This event is taking place shortly after the resurrection and Our Lord is speaking to all the eleven Apostles.
Fast forward about eight or nine years and we see this: [Acts 10:44-45] While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
And this: [Acts 11:1-3] And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. (verse 18) When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
The question would be.....does Matthew (the Greek/English) faithfully state the "Great Commission" as it was stipulated in the Hebrew. If so.....then why are the Apostles so dumbfounded and astonished almost a decade later when they hear about Peter's meeting with Cornelius....and the results?
I'll stay with my original statement about Matthew: "I'm not sure if what we have .....is the entire story."