Study of Matthew

metis · Oct 19, 2018

KenS said:
Herod, indeed, was a wicked man having even killed several of his wives and his father-in-law. Many say "why wasn't it recorded" however, this wasn't a metropolitan area nor was this outside of his demeanor.

Ya, he wasn't a nice guy. When in Jerusalem the first time, I went to Herod's palace whereas the original foundation was found and there's a mock-up of what they think the palace was like. Not very big by our standards today, but big as compared to most other dwellings there at that time. I'm sure your house is much larger, especially since you're a royal pain in the a** anyway.

KenS said:
Many have the wise men coming to the birth of Jesus, but Herod killed children 2 years and under which suggests it was later; they were now in a house (intimated); and it says "child" which gives the understanding of older than a child.

Interesting.

KenS said:
Many "that it might be fulfilled". As it is understood that even if, as some purport, that many are made up are forced to conform, just eight is enough to validate the fulfilling of prophecy as just eight fulfilled has the odds at 1 in 100,000,000, 000,000,000. https://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/jesus-odds.html

How in the world did they manage to come up with that figure?

KenS said:
I remember when my son as a child was looking outside our back window and said "DAD, look there is an angel there". I couldn't see it and asked where. He pointed and said "right there!", pointing to the back corner. I believe him.

Ya, I was trying to see what your house was like, so I hate to admit I'm a Peeping Metis.

Brickjectivity · Oct 19, 2018

metis said:
Ah, I finally got around to reading the above, which I think is quite insightful, so let me just say that Jesus being a man of peace is in part what he was about, although it does beg the question to what extent is that to be taken? IOW, was Jesus absolute about that in terms of complete non-violence? I'm not sure because that would negate defending the innocent even if force is necessary to accomplish that as is mandated by Torah. Your thoughts?

This particular passage does not express the idea of defending the innocent I think because it is busy with other ideas such as answering the question of why Israel has been oppressed. I think that Jesus does suggest Jews must submit to the Roman authorities. His violent apostle, Judas of the Sicari, is the only apostle ever to be replaced; sending us the message that violent revolt is problematic. Judas betrays Jesus not for the silver, so he does it because he is a Sicari. He wants to use violence to effect peace. Matthew does not go into detail or explain. I think Jesus would defend the innocent, but this book is written within the whole of the Judaic world. A lot of things do not have to be directly said. He doesn't explain in Matthew what it means to be Jewish. There is no character development, because you should know what its like to be Jewish when you read it. You should just know a lot of things.

I did not ever know that the Torah required defending the innocent, although I knew it required just decisions. I will try to think about that and add it to my thoughts. No doubt it is very important at times to defend the weak persons.

Dawnofhope · Oct 19, 2018

Once again, interesting to hear everyone's comments. So much I want to say but so little I can as I am a foreigner who has lost his way drifting haplessly into a DIR section and always at risk of being moderated.

I hope you guys are OK about few connections between the Tanakh and Gospel of Matthew being made before I respectfully submit my questions to the learned panel.

Matthew 2:5-6 – They [chief priests and scribes] told him [Herod], "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet: / 'And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.' "
Micah 5:2 – "But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days."

Matthew 2:15 – This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son."
Hosea 11:1 – "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."

Matthew 2:17-18 – Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah: "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they are no more."
Jeremiah 31:15 "Thus says the LORD: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more."

Matthew 2:23 – There [in Galilee] he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, "He will be called a Nazorean."
Isaiah 11:1 – "A shoot (Heb. nezer) shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots."

What if any of these passages can be verified using standard historical and archaelogical analysis?

What are acceptable sources of hsitoric analysis? Philo, Josephus, Tactitus...who else?

To what extent should Matthew been seen as literal history?

Is it reasonable to see the gospel narratives as part history that has been embellished with allegory, symbolism and metaphor?

If the story is all literally true, how can we explain the star and its movements?

Where did the three wise men and how can we account for their wisdom?

Thank you.

Kenny · Oct 19, 2018

metis said:
Ah, I finally got around to reading the above, which I think is quite insightful, so let me just say that Jesus being a man of peace is in part what he was about, although it does beg the question to what extent is that to be taken? IOW, was Jesus absolute about that in terms of complete non-violence? I'm not sure because that would negate defending the innocent even if force is necessary to accomplish that as is mandated by Torah. Your thoughts?

I agree especially since making a whip and utilizing it wasn't a problem for him. But when do you respond in peace and non-violence? I think it is a personal judgment call. IMO

Regiomontanus · Oct 20, 2018

metis said:
I finished our analysis of chapter 1 in Matthew yesterday, and I'm now going to write two posts, with the first just being an overview of things I felt were important and/or interesting, and then in my second post I'll give my opinions on some items that I know you're all waiting with baited breath for, which does bring up the question as to why eat bait? Well, maybe it's because you're a lousy fisherman/women/transgender?

Matthew starts out with a genealogy of Jesus that goes all the way back to Abraham. The feeling is that this was done as Matthew was oriented to the Jewish people, thus there would be the necessity to connect Jesus to David's lineage to show that it was at least possible that he could be the long awaited Messiah.

Also connected with that narrative we also went back into a look at some very strong but controversial women, such as Tamar, Rehab, and Ruth.

We then looked at a diagnosis of Jesus' name "Yashua", which is a slang form of Joshua and means "God saves". Also there is "Christos", which is Greek for the Hebrew title of "mosiach" ("messiah"-- an anointed one). "Yashua" was a fairly common name back then and there were numerous messiahs. Also he gets labeled "Emmanuel", which means "God is with us", which does become a source for the Trinitarian concept. .

Parallels were then drawn between Jesus and Joshua, especially dealing with the concept of saving their people, albeit from different perspectives.

And finally there's the teaching that Jesus was born of a virgin and remained a virgin for the rest of her life, and that the labels for "sons" and "daughters" was also the same labels for cousins. Protestants tend to differ with Catholics as to whether Mary had sexual relations with Joseph and had other children.

So, the above is the general approach taken, but since this meeting was over two hours, some of these were discussed in more detail plus some other tangents were covered.

The next post is my take, so hopefully you got rid of the taste of bait my now.

Hello. I have a question. Note I do not identify as a Catholic, though I think one could argue that every follower of Jesus "is a bit Catholic"

And the question is how the notion of perpetual virginity came about, specifically when reading:

25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. [NIV]

25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. [NRSV]

The way I read that is that...well, she did not stay a virgin.

I would be interested in the Catholic take on this. Thank you.

Glaurung · Oct 20, 2018

Regiomontanus said:
Hello. I have a question. Note I do not identify as a Catholic, though I think one could argue that every follower of Jesus "is a bit Catholic"

And the question is how the notion of perpetual virginity came about, specifically when reading:

25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. [NIV]

25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. [NRSV]

The way I read that is that...well, she did not stay a virgin.

I would be interested in the Catholic take on this. Thank you.

I will quote the footnote from my copy of the Knox version Bible.

The text here is more literally rendered 'he knew her not till she bore a son'; but the Hebrew word represented by 'till' does not imply that the event which might have been expected did take place afterwards. So that this phrase does not impugn the perpetual virginity of our Lady. Nor is any such interference to be drawn when our Lord is called her 'firstborn' Son, which refers to his position as redeemable under the old law.

Regiomontanus · Oct 20, 2018

Musing Bassist said:
I will quote the footnote from my copy of the Knox version Bible.

Hello. Here is the Greek:

καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν · καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.

Matthew 1 - SBLG Bible - Bible Study Tools

And a translation from that:

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat1.pdf

As far as Hebrew is concerned, the NT was written (originally) in Greek, yes? So I do not follow that interpretation you quoted.

metis · Oct 20, 2018

Regiomontanus said:
Hello. I have a question. Note I do not identify as a Catholic, though I think one could argue that every follower of Jesus "is a bit Catholic"

And the question is how the notion of perpetual virginity came about, specifically when reading:

25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. [NIV]

25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. [NRSV]

The way I read that is that...well, she did not stay a virgin.

I would be interested in the Catholic take on this. Thank you.

Yes, as I personally don't believe that Mary was a virgin before or after giving birth to Jesus, and I think it's likely that most Catholic theologians don't either.

BTW, the word for "brother" in Koine Greek also includes male cousins, so we can't go by that word.

metis · Oct 20, 2018

As a personal note, I have to abruptly leave because I just got a call from the hospital whereas my sister, who has stage four cancer, has suddenly taken a turn for the worse. Also, we just found out yesterday that my wife has melanoma, so please pray for both of them.

Have a most blessed weekend and I hope to see yas on Monday.

Regiomontanus · Oct 20, 2018

metis said:
As a personal note, I have to abruptly leave because I just got a call from the hospital whereas my sister, who has stage four cancer, has suddenly taken a turn for the worse. Also, we just found out yesterday that my wife has melanoma, so please pray for both of them.

Have a most blessed weekend and I hope to see yas on Monday.

So sorry to hear that, I will pray for you and your family.

Dawnofhope · Oct 20, 2018

metis said:
As a personal note, I have to abruptly leave because I just got a call from the hospital whereas my sister, who has stage four cancer, has suddenly taken a turn for the worse. Also, we just found out yesterday that my wife has melanoma, so please pray for both of them.

Have a most blessed weekend and I hope to see yas on Monday.

Sorry to hear that. You’re in my thoughts and prayers

Kenny · Oct 21, 2018

metis said:
As a personal note, I have to abruptly leave because I just got a call from the hospital whereas my sister, who has stage four cancer, has suddenly taken a turn for the worse. Also, we just found out yesterday that my wife has melanoma, so please pray for both of them.

Have a most blessed weekend and I hope to see yas on Monday.

Our prayers are with you!!!!!

Kenny · Oct 21, 2018

adrian009 said:
Once again, interesting to hear everyone's comments. So much I want to say but so little I can as I am a foreigner who has lost his way drifting haplessly into a DIR section and always at risk of being moderated.

I hope you guys are OK about few connections between the Tanakh and Gospel of Matthew being made before I respectfully submit my questions to the learned panel.

Matthew 2:5-6 – They [chief priests and scribes] told him [Herod], "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet: / 'And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.' "
Micah 5:2 – "But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days."

Matthew 2:15 – This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son."
Hosea 11:1 – "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."

Matthew 2:17-18 – Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah: "A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they are no more."
Jeremiah 31:15 "Thus says the LORD: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more."

Matthew 2:23 – There [in Galilee] he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, "He will be called a Nazorean."
Isaiah 11:1 – "A shoot (Heb. nezer) shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots."

What if any of these passages can be verified using standard historical and archaelogical analysis?

What are acceptable sources of hsitoric analysis? Philo, Josephus, Tactitus...who else?

To what extent should Matthew been seen as literal history?

Is it reasonable to see the gospel narratives as part history that has been embellished with allegory, symbolism and metaphor?

If the story is all literally true, how can we explain the star and its movements?

Where did the three wise men and how can we account for their wisdom?

Thank you.

Other than the archaeological evidence of the cities, I'm not sure what else can be confirmed.

As you can see, positions vary as they do in all religions. The more fundamental one is the more one will take these scripture (in particular) more literally and historically. However, the scriptures that you referred to still has some symbolic and metaphorical applications such as "A voice was heard in Ramah".

The more liberal thought will take it less historically and more symbolic and metaphorically.

The "stump of Jesse" will be more historical, IMO, as chapter one establishes that vein of thought. Also the verse about Bethlehem would be more historical IMV.

It doesn't mention "three" wise men. Some believe they were many more. As I mentioned before, theories abound but the one I hold as more weightier, that these wise men were descendants of the time of Daniel and, perhaps, understood these things because of the same.

There is a theory about the star.

Can astronomy explain the biblical Star of Bethlehem?

Kenny · Oct 21, 2018

metis said:
How in the world did they manage to come up with that figure?

Statisticians figured out the probabilities.

metis · Oct 22, 2018

Thank you for your kind words of support as we're spending more time in doctor's offices and hospitals that I ever could have imagined. I guess it's just a by-product of our "vintage".

Love yas!

metis · Oct 24, 2018

Chapter Three Overview

This is a short chapter so my overview and my take will be quite short, especially since I'm leaving on a mini-vacation tomorrow anyway. So here are the main points of interest to me:

John the Baptist preaches repentance and confession and baptizes Jesus with water.

Pharisees & Sadducees come to hear him.

Similarity with Elijah and the latter's role to announce the Messiah, plus there's similarities between Elisha and Jesus.

Jesus said that he will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire, thus a prediction of what is to happen at Pentecost.

metis · Oct 24, 2018

My Take:

Even though the moderator of the session believes John is probably an Essene, I think he's more likely to be a nazir.

Whereas both the Sadducees and the Pharisees had a rather large body of commandments they followed, John's message was really quite simple: believe and repent, which is compatible with Jesus' main drift.

The emphasis by John is that a real faith involves doing God's will, not just believing about it.

The depth of the water used in baptism really isn't that important but true repentance is.

BTW, I've been at the location where it is believed Jesus was baptized, and it's a bit of a culture shock to see the river being so narrow and so shallow, especially growing up here in Michigan.

OK, I'll say it before @KenS does: I tried to grow up.

Regiomontanus · Oct 25, 2018

metis said:
My Take:

Even though the moderator of the session believes John is probably an Essene, I think he's more likely to be a nazir.

Whereas both the Sadducees and the Pharisees had a rather large body of commandments they followed, John's message was really quite simple: believe and repent, which is compatible with Jesus' main drift.

The emphasis by John is that a real faith involves doing God's will, not just believing about it.

The depth of the water used in baptism really isn't that important but true repentance is.

BTW, I've been at the location where it is believed Jesus was baptized, and it's a bit of a culture shock to see the river being so narrow and so shallow, especially growing up here in Michigan.

OK, I'll say it before @KenS does: I tried to grow up.

Hello. I have heard some claim that John was was an Essene and there are some similarities between his 'lifestyle ' and that of the Essenes. But several differences too (I have a great journal article on this I am trying to unearth from the depths of my library) and some scholars who have looked at this much more deeply (and whom I tend to trust) discount the idea. Of course many have claimed that Jesus was one too but that is rejected by most scholars of early Christianity. I think the takeaway is that these groups, all being Jewish and living at the same time in close proximity to each other, are bound to be similar in many respects.

I wonder if the river back then was deeper and wider. Considering the rate of development since then and the general health of most waterways these days, that would not surprise me (I would be surprised if not, actually).

metis · Oct 25, 2018

Regiomontanus said:
I think the takeaway is that these groups, all being Jewish and living at the same time in close proximity to each other, are bound to be similar in many respects.

That's a good chance, no doubt, but where I have suspicions about John and/or Jesus being of the Essenes is because the Essenes had texts well beyond what's found in the Tanakh and yet none of these other texts are ever quoted. There are some other reasons as well why I don't think John and Jesus was of them but I'm in a hurry because I have to leave shortly.

Regiomontanus said:
I wonder if the river back then was deeper and wider. Considering the rate of development since then and the general health of most waterways these days, that would not surprise me (I would be surprised if not, actually).

Where the Jordan is variable is between the dry and rainy seasons with the latter being largely in January and February. As it is, we simply do not know which month Jesus' baptism occurred in, although that water would be quite cold during those early months.

Dawnofhope · Oct 25, 2018

metis said:
My Take:

Even though the moderator of the session believes John is probably an Essene, I think he's more likely to be a nazir.

Whereas both the Sadducees and the Pharisees had a rather large body of commandments they followed, John's message was really quite simple: believe and repent, which is compatible with Jesus' main drift.

The emphasis by John is that a real faith involves doing God's will, not just believing about it.

The depth of the water used in baptism really isn't that important but true repentance is.

BTW, I've been at the location where it is believed Jesus was baptized, and it's a bit of a culture shock to see the river being so narrow and so shallow, especially growing up here in Michigan.

OK, I'll say it before @KenS does: I tried to grow up.

Could John the Baptist have been a Sabean?

Sabean Mandeans Keep Faith in Dangerous Land

Did he come in the spirit of Elijah?

Mark 9:11-13, Matthew 11:13-14, Malachi 4:5-6

Study of Matthew

aged ecumenical anthropologist

wind and rain touch not this brain

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Face to face with my Father

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.

Denizen of Niflheim

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.

aged ecumenical anthropologist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Face to face with my Father

Face to face with my Father

Face to face with my Father

aged ecumenical anthropologist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i