Which apostles works do you feel have more credibility, Matthew or............?

Question

Paul?

Answer 1

Matthew, but just barely. Matthew is bad for ripping verse out of context from the Old Testament and applying it as prophesy where no prophesy existed originally or was already fulfilled. Paul is a religious hack. He is a self witness to himself. We are just suppose to believe what he says because he says so.

Answer 2

Hi Tony L.

Sts. Matthew and Paul are both credible because they're both Apostles. In other words, they had Apostolic Authority. Therefore, there's no question as to the credibility of either of them.

St. Matthew wrote the Words of Christ along with his eyewitness account, AKA, the Gospel of Matthew. St. Paul was the "mega Word-on-wheels", or on horseback, as it was then. He took the Gospel writings, including those of Matthew, and spread the Word all over the "then-known world", AKA, the Roman Empire and some regions beyond it. St. Paul helped St. Peter established the Church of Antioch before St. Peter returned to his bishopric in Rome.

Therefore, without the Gospel writings, AKA, St. Matthew, St. Paul would not have had the Word in order to spread it.

Answer 3

I believe they are equally credible but written for different purposes. Matthew, Mark and Luke are synoptics. Everything that is in Mark is in Matthew and Luke, but not everything in Matthew is in Luke and Mark and not everything in Luke is in Matthew and Mark.
Matthew was the gospel for the Jewish Christians. It makes more references to Old Testament prophecies than any of the other gospels.
Luke was the gospel to the "outcast." He tells of Jesus reaching out to Gentiles, the poor, sinners and women.
Mark, some say has Peter's influence. It is very spontaneous. It has one miracle after another and the crowds are always amazed, astonished etc. Like a simple man he's the only one who tell you the people reclined on the green grass for the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes. He also is the only that tells you that Jesus had his head on a cushion when they were in the boat and storm came up. He sums up the crucifixion using a few words about Jesus dying on the cross but uses many words to tell you about the soldiers throwing dice for his cloak. Mark was a close associate of Peter. The image of Peter is a spontaneous, but sometimes clumsy,apostle. Some people love Mark's gospel because of that.
Now John lived much longer and his gospel tells of things the other 3 don't, like the wedding feast at Cana.
There are little minor discrepancies but the message is the same. That is what is important.

Answer 4

Matthew was with Jesus from the beginning.

Paul at first persecuted the early Christians and tried to wipe out Christianity because he was what was considered a good Jew. Jesus the came to Paul in a dream and blinded him. He was told to go to one of his disciples in a nearby town to have his sight restored. All the apostles feared Paul, but Pauls vision was restored. Ever since then Paul believed Jesus was more than just a prophet, but the Son of God. He believed that not only the Jews were God's people, but everyone who believes in Jesus as the Savior can be saved.

Paul proves that no matter what wrongs you have done (like persecuting and murdering Christians), if you choose to follow Jesus, you can be of great value and have eternal life.

Answer 5

Well its an interesting matter but since Matthew had a fine education, I would be pressed to say Matthew since he was a disciple. But of all the writers of the Bible, and certainly of the New Testament, Paul is the most intelligent, the most educated, and thus in the best position to dwell in matters of theology. Plus Paul was the most educated in matters of the Law and Old Testament, really he is one of the best people conceivable to tell us of the importance of Christ. The eyewitnesses could tell us about Christ himself, but Paul is the most reliable at telling what makes Christ important. I could elaborate but I'm busy at this exact moment.

Answer 6

Paul

Answer 7

They are all credible, they may be told a little different but still true. I believe them all. For example if you read about Judas Iscariot after betraying Jesus. each explanation could have happened. There may be a little difference in the geneology if Jesus. But there again it's something we may not understand ,but credible. Or when the Marys went to the tomb. It could happened either way.
No two people tell things exactly alike.
The Gospel of the Holy Spirit is the Most credible.

Answer 8

It would have to be Paul's letters because he wrote them himself. He was close to the disciples particularly St. Peter. His letters also laid down the foundation for Christian doctrine and practise.

My second choice would be the gospel of Luke. Although he was a not a disciple of Jesus he had first hand knowledge of Jesus through the apostles. He was also a journalist. He said his gospel was the result of his own personal investigation.
Peace and every blessing!

Answer 9

whichever apostle has more reasearch which may be done, biographically speaking. Paul has more books in the bible, but Matthew has the gospel according to him

Answer 10

All of them did what they were written in the script of life to do however Paul was doing the dag on thing so was Peter, all of them in their own right helped to spread the gospel. Job well done guys.