is matthew the first gospel or not?

we have a book- which someone chose to arrange- in which the book of matthew is positioned first-

although origin wrote so and the contents of matthew support this, because matthew was called by jesus and therefore in the time of jesus, so first- some researchers claim that matthew is after mark and the changes different from mark were intentional to alter the message from what mark taught.

that is how some researchers taught in Christian bible schools analyze the gospels.

if we assume that matthew is TRUE then the books that conflict it should not be in the canon of holy books.

here is a list

matthew teaches that the morning after the day they must kill the Passover, jesus was judged by pilate and jesus refused to answer

if so books such as john that have jesus answer "my kingdom is not of this world" and on the day that they will kill the Passover as well as pauls letter to Corinth where jesus is called a Passover are false and a lie cannot be holy so both john and Corinth should not be in the canon of holy books

also when reading matthew in order we see :

9.17 "no new in old" like mark 2.22- showing jesus teaches new and rejects old

15.14 rejecting wash- the tradition=old, like mark 7.23 and adding the Pharisees are "blind"- challenging the form of Judaism in his generation.

16.12 avoid teaching-didactic of Pharisees like mark 8.15

after such reading the reader is convinced that jesus challenges the Pharisees- until reading

matthw 23.3 practice=do what they say ?? after so many rejections? if they say, "to wash hands" do?
yet he already rejected that specific teaching and in general called the phariseess BLIND.

if this is true then jesus was UNCERTAIN and not only not godly divine but not a leader.

considering that this book has a self-contradiction it is not a source to push the other books out but should be the first gospel to be rejected from the canon of holy books in order to avoid problems.

indeed at least one commentator reverses what is revealed in matthew writing "not cancel Pharisees" and bending the other quotes to submit to this one a corruption of the word as if jesus said do as they say- when he called them BLIND.
matthew is the FIRST gospel to REJECT and not include in a any holy group of books and the problems increase- see below- unless you are willing to bend and say numbers are not important and it does not really mean what it said...
the problem is: if we start with the assumption "it is holy" then prejudice forces us to defend a bad book and invent "meanings" resulting from this religious prejudice...
only a secular can start with the question "is this consistent" and read until revealing the problems as they are in reality with no prejudice.

in contrast mark has all the above rejections of Pharisees-
 and consisteantly lacks the incongruent section "do as they teach"
if there is a canon at all- better to remove matthew and then the reader is saved from these bad ideas.

similarly despite the old testament teaching of Leviticus 23 that even after sin and punishment god will not reject his people which even the new testament includes that "unsaved Israel" is called Israel hoping to save and not rejected the ones first called- in romans several times which does match Leviticus 26-

matthew challenges these sources in 21.43 the kingdom of heaven is taken from you- this is not a message from the same god who led paul and moses.

if matthew is true- we would need to reject romans, to avoid conflict, but still it is not the same god who told moses Leviticus 26.43-44 "And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the Lord their God.

see for yourself https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+26&version=KJV

however if matthew is not from the same god, it should not be in the canon and this incongruent verse which does not appear in mark's parallel, would never be read.

it adds no help to say that mark was written for gentiles therefore it lacks the problem phrase of "do what the Pharisees say" because Mathew self-contradicts and was not written with guidance of the holy spirit unless you do not mind lies.

finally the disciples of jesus are described in mark as failing to understand- many times mark 9.10 did not comprehend  also 9.32 "But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it".- because jesus criticized them so often for not understanding many times in mark.

but in matthew the disciples are smart- matthew 13.51 15.16 16.9 and more- and do not fear to ask-

15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.” 16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them"

and mattehw 16.12 and 17.13 and more he even praises their understanding in 13.16

blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.

in light of this pattern again we see self contradiction in jmatthew where consistently the disciples understand and jesus praised them except the incongruent peter- another reason it was a mistake to include matthew in the canon. these are not the true disciples

the true disciples consistently did not understand mark 8.17-21

Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?

clearly matthew is false because mark consistently has jesus criticizing the failures mark 9.10 same as 9.32 above and needed to be criticized so often that they feared to ask... but matthew describes the disciples differently and not only understanding but has the incongruous criticsm of peter so clearly matthew is THE FIRST gospel to REMOVE but mark and luke are no better because jesus did anser in john unlike mark where pilate said "you are not answering" and in the Hebrew version "at all" !! and the wrong day so if any gospel is first it is not the books of lies but after removing matthew mark and luke nothing remains to contradict john- the first gospel yet only some of what he sayd independently should be accepted only those few details in john which are also supported by the other "nonholy" gospels should be worth studying.