Talk:Gospel of Matthew

"Matthew, Gospel According to" listed at Redirects for discussion

File:Information.svg The redirect Matthew, Gospel According to has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Template:Slink until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"Original Matthew" listed at Redirects for discussion

File:Information.svg The redirect Original Matthew has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Template:Slink until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

“It tells how Israel’s messiah”

I think this line should be removed, it isn’t objective (Israel doesn’t view him as Messiah) 87.68.203.132 (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We're not saying that Matthew's claim would be true. It is just what he claims to be true. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Explain Q

@Remsense I am confused why you keep reverting my edits. I explained what the Gospel Q is as simple as possible. How should it be explained? The wiki page for the Q source calls it “part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospels of Mark”. I called it “hypothetical sayings Gospel Q (which consists of the material Matthew shares in common with Luke)”, which is pretty similar. This is very understandable, and if you have a problem you should WP: FIXFIRST by making it understandable. 2607:B400:A00:12:F5D9:701E:F6A4:8031 (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)2607:B400:A00:12:F5D9:701E:F6A4:8031

I've reverted Remsense's edit - the material on Q is reliably sourced and essential to an account of current understanding of Matthew. Please note, thought, the Q is not a gospel.Achar Sva (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

How can a statement that is literally wrong and deeply misleading be reliably sourced? Good grief. Remsense ‥ 论 10:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If I understand our article correctly, it's saying that Matthew uses Mark and Q as it's sources (plus M of course). If you think this is wrong, what's your reason?Achar Sva (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

As you yourself said, calling it a gospel is wrong, ergo not what the source says, ergo not verified. To make my position clear, a version of this addition that correctly explains Q and its hypothetical relationship to Matthew would be welcomed by me.Remsense ‥ 论 10:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The further I go in the is article, the more repetition I find (of points rather than wording, mostly). It needs some heavy and careful editing. Achar Sva (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)