The gospel of Matthew has been severely corrupted in the bible if it was the same one originally written by the disciple Matthew. Matthew's gospel, originally known as the gospel of the Hebrews, began with the baptism of Jesus. St Matthew in the bible begins with a chapter devoted to the birth of Jesus. Whoever the correctors were, or the ones who added the first three chapters to the original, had basically two motives in mind: to prove that Jesus was the Messiah and to prove that Jesus was God incarnate.
However, what most readers don't realize is that these two ideas contradict each other: by inserting Jesus' genealogy they are trying to prove that he was a direct descendant of David and Solomon as a fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy and at the same time showing that Mary was a virgin at his birth in an attempt to prove that Jesus was God incarnate.
And why else would the writer have inserted the whole genealogy from king David to Joseph if it weren't for the purpose of showing that Jesus was qualified to be the Messiah being a flesh and blood son of Joseph? Then to say that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born is a glaring contradiction.
Mat 1:22, 23 Is a quote from Isaiah 7:14 "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." However, it turns out (Isaiah 8) that the son in the prophesy is about Isaiah's son, and his wife was NOT a virgin. The word "virgin" was incorrectly translated, it should have been a "young woman". This was not even a prophecy but a sign to king Ahaz years before Jesus' birth. So Mat 1:18-25 could only be forgery and falsehood.
For Jesus to legitimately qualify to be the Messiah, king of Israel, he had to be a flesh and blood descendant of king David according to Messianic prophecy. For him to qualify as God incarnate, according to Christology, he could not have a flesh and blood father, but his mother had to be a virgin. It is likely that Joseph's genealogy is genuine, but for Jesus to qualify as the legitimate king of the Jews, Joseph had to be his biological father. These two concepts are diametrically contradictory.
In this chapter the author tries to use passages from the Old Testament to reinforce the concept presented in chapter one, that Jesus was the Messiah.
Mat 2:1-6 The author claims there that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Mic 5:2, by saying Jesus was born in Bethlehem. However, Bethlehem Ephratah was not a city but a person. This is corruption and falsehood.
Mat 2:16 Herod kills all the children in and around Bethlehem under 2 years old trying to kill Jesus. However, none of the historians of this time, outside the bible, even mentions this occurrence. Even the great historian, Josephus, who lived during the first century and wrote about all the horrible deeds of Herod, ever said a word about the famous, so-called "slaughter of the innocents". What's more, Herod was already dead before Jesus was even born. More corruption and falsehood.
Mat 2:17, 18 Supposedly fulfillment of Jer 31:15: "A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping". However, this verse in Jeremiah was not even a prophecy. It was about the children being taken captive into a foreign country, NOT killed. This becomes obvious in the very next verse where God says, "and they shall come again from the land of the enemy", and even more obvious in Jer 31:17 where it says, "And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border." Again more corruption and falsehood.
Mat 2:15 Supposedly fulfilling the prophecy of Hos 11:1 which says "and called my son out of Egypt". However that very verse starts out "When Israel was a child". In the Old Testament Israel is frequently called "my son" -- so my son is Israel, not Jesus. What's more, the very next verse says that "they* sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images"*. This is definitely about Israel coming out of Egypt, not Jesus. Jesus was not an idolater. Still more corruption and falsehood.
Mat 2:23 Supposed to be fulfilling some prophecy spoken by the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene". However, there is not a verse in the entire Old Testament like this to be found. It's hard to believe that how that people would fall for this.
In Chapter two there are at least five lies that the author inserts to back his story with the intention of convincing the reader that Jesus was the Messiah. But in fact, these are not even the things that the Messiah had to do in order to fulfill Messiahship.
According to these biblical requirements Jesus did NOT qualify as the Messiah. What's more is that there is nowhere in the Messianic prophecies that Messiah would be murdered and return a second time and fulfill the prophecies that he didn't fulfill in his first coming.
Chapter three starts out with the baptism of Jesus and is only 17 verses long, however it has one of the most serious corruptions of the gospel of St Matthew. The author takes a different angle and tries to prove that Jesus is God incarnate by removing the original text of the gospel. This is corruption and falsehood in its worst form. It is wicked and deceptive.
Verse 17 says "This is my son in whom I am well pleased". In the most ancient manuscripts are God's words to Jesus at his baptism: "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee". This very important statement has been removed, since when Jesus BECAME a son when he was already an adult, this could only have been God using a metaphor.
Jesus was NOT a literal son. He was NOT born The Son of God -- in other words, God incarnate. The words "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee" were most certainly in the original manuscript since this passage is quoted in Hebrews 1:5; 5:5, Psa 2:7 and Act 13:33. The redactors neglected to remove this passage from Hebrews and Acts. Plus many church fathers quoted this verse from ancient manuscripts. More corruption.
He was also referred to in Heb 5:6 as the "first begotten" into the world. Since this would not be literal and Jesus is a first begotten, that means there is a second begotten, a third begotten, etc. He is not an ONLY begotten. Where it says only begotten anywhere in the New Testament, this can only be either a purposeful mistranslation or a forgery.
In fact, the original gospel written by the actual disciple Matthew, says, "You are My first begotten Son that prevails forever". It also says, "Today I have begotten You".
According to messianic prophecy Messiah would be a flesh and blood descendant of King David, therefore he could not be God, since according to Christology Jesus was supposed to have been born of a virgin. What's more, God is not a man and could not sire a son according to Jewish teaching.
Mat 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: (it was changed from "in my name" to give credence to the false doctrine of the Trinity)
This is probably a later forgery, later than the previous ones since it is an attempt to prove the validity of the "Holy Trinity", which is not even biblical. This passage is recognized by many scholars as forgery. Several church fathers quote this verse from earlier documents that do not have the part "Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", but only "in my name".
In this last chapter of St Matthew, the correctors or the Trinitarians, corrupt the very words of Jesus in and effort to try to prove that the Jesus and God are one in the same god. But then they throw in the Holy Ghost to make them into a triune god that would make it easy for the pagans to swallow.
Probably the first gospel written, the gospel of Matthew was corrupted to make Jesus a god-man and at the same time turning him into a messiah that did not, in fact, meet the qualifications. It is basically on these two false, contradictory assumptions that almost everything in the other gospels are based.
Having so many falsehoods and lies, there is no way that the four gospels can be trusted as the 100% truth, inerrant, word of God, let alone a good part of the rest of the New Testament that is supposed to be based on those gospels. It is not to say that there is no truth in the New Testament, but with so many lies and contradictions how is one to know the difference between what is false and what is true?
Introduction to the New Testament: "The Christian can only mitigate the disrespect he feels for plagiarists and impostors by the reflection that the conscience of the second century had practically no recognition for those literary crimes, rampant as they then were in the Church" (p. 168). Yet it is the product of these "literary crimes" that believers put their faith in when they read their Bibles today! -- B.W. Bacon
