Book of Matthew

[rcjones]

Theologians view the New Testament as new teaching. This is their first error. The New Testament teaches us the methods to see Jesus in the Old, as he showed the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

Mark records what happened. The others using Mark, teach us to read the Old Testament to see that Jesus, in fact, fulfills the prophecies, and the law.

You might consider that they are making the case for a group of ‘Bereans’ who check out the teaching if the apostles to see if it is true. The gospels are the arguments… which is why so many theologians have heartburn with the strange way in which they ‘quote’ or apply the Old Testament.

The spirit of Prophecy is the testimony of Jesus Christ. This spirit is demonstrated as the Gospel writers interpret the life of Christ in view of the prophecies.

When the apostles are accused of misquoting, they aren’t quoting at all, they are paraphrasing in order to show us how to read the prophecy in the context of Christ. When the theologians say that the OT authors couldn’t have written about Christ, they deny the power of God.

Jesus’s ‘rebellion’ when he was 12 is prophesied in the rebellion of the nine kings of Chedloamer. Luke is filling out more prophetic details than Matthew did.

Matthew tells us in the genealogy that there is a hidden record of Jesus in the Old Testament. He says there are 42 ‘records’ but there are only 41 listed. The 42nd record of Jesus is contained in the record of the Hebrews from Abraham on.

 

[melbanglican]

Theologians view the New Testament as new teaching. This is their first error. The New Testament teaches us the methods to see Jesus in the Old, as he showed the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

Mark records what happened. The others using Mark, teach us to read the Old Testament to see that Jesus, in fact, fulfills the prophecies, and the law.

You might consider that they are making the case for a group of ‘Bereans’ who check out the teaching if the apostles to see if it is true. The gospels are the arguments… which is why so many theologians have heartburn with the strange way in which they ‘quote’ or apply the Old Testament.

The spirit of Prophecy is the testimony of Jesus Christ. This spirit is demonstrated as the Gospel writers interpret the life of Christ in view of the prophecies.

When the apostles are accused of misquoting, they aren’t quoting at all, they are paraphrasing in order to show us how to read the prophecy in the context of Christ. When the theologians say that the OT authors couldn’t have written about Christ, they deny the power of God.

Jesus’s ‘rebellion’ when he was 12 is prophesied in the rebellion of the nine kings of Chedloamer. Luke is filling out more prophetic details than Matthew did.

Matthew tells us in the genealogy that there is a hidden record of Jesus in the Old Testament. He says there are 42 ‘records’ but there are only 41 listed. The 42nd record of Jesus is contained in the record of the Hebrews from Abraham on.

Which theologians did you have in mind in your criticism above? Can you throw us a few names? I’d like to read a theologian who could so readily miss the message repeatedly spelled out explicitly in Matthew.

Peace be with you.

 

[rcjones]

Which theologians did you have in mind in your criticism above? Can you throw us a few names? I’d like to read a theologian who could so readily miss the message repeatedly spelled out explicitly in Matthew.

Peace be with you.

Can you show me one who uses the missing record in the genealogy ( he says there are 42 names but there are only 41) to show that the OT Abraham to Micah is a record of Jesus.

How about one who shows that the first seven on the list are second sons in prophecy that Jesus would be the second Adam? Or that Yeshua does not mean the same as Immanuel, but is a riddle using the pun of Yeshua meaning ‘God humbled’ teaching us to use puns and riddles as we read prophecy to see Christ.

How bout one that rather than saying Matthew misquoted this or that prophecy, says that he paraphrased it, so to teach us how to interpret it in light of Christ. Or one that says rather than read the quoted scripture alone, that the whole prophecy referenced has come to pass.

Can you show me one theologian who uses Matthew’s teaching to connect the prophecies of Joseph in Egypt to Abraham in Egypt to Joseph in Egypt rather than complain that Micah’s prophecy of God calling his son out of Egypt can’t apply to Jesus?

Can you show me one who shows that the prophecy hidden in the Judah-Tamar narrative was fulfilled as demonstrated by the birth of Jesus? Or links the magis to the midwives in Egypt called upon to do the dirty work of a fearful king?

How bout one who can identify that Jesus stayed in the temple at age 12 to fulfill the prophecy hidden in the battle between the nine kings of Chedloamer?

How bout one who knows that to make water our of wine you must remove that axe head from the stream as Elisha did? Or one who even understands the connection?

I’d be happy to meet or read such theologians. Please introduce me to one who even mentions the Judah-Tamar narrative as a prophecy of the birth of Christ. Thanks.

 

[melbanglican]

Can you show me one who uses the missing record in the genealogy ( he says there are 42 names but there are only 41) to show that the OT Abraham to Micah is a record of Jesus.

How about one who shows that the first seven on the list are second sons in prophecy that Jesus would be the second Adam? Or that Yeshua does not mean the same as Immanuel, but is a riddle using the pun of Yeshua meaning ‘God humbled’ teaching us to use puns and riddles as we read prophecy to see Christ.

How bout one that rather than saying Matthew misquoted this or that prophecy, says that he paraphrased it, so to teach us how to interpret it in light of Christ. Or one that says rather than read the quoted scripture alone, that the whole prophecy referenced has come to pass.

Can you show me one theologian who uses Matthew’s teaching to connect the prophecies of Joseph in Egypt to Abraham in Egypt to Joseph in Egypt rather than complain that Micah’s prophecy of God calling his son out of Egypt can’t apply to Jesus?

Can you show me one who shows that the prophecy hidden in the Judah-Tamar narrative was fulfilled as demonstrated by the birth of Jesus? Or links the magis to the midwives in Egypt called upon to do the dirty work of a fearful king?

How bout one who can identify that Jesus stayed in the temple at age 12 to fulfill the prophecy hidden in the battle between the nine kings of Chedloamer?

How bout one who knows that to make water our of wine you must remove that axe head from the stream as Elisha did? Or one who even understands the connection?

I’d be happy to meet or read such theologians. Please introduce me to one who even mentions the Judah-Tamar narrative as a prophecy of the birth of Christ. Thanks.

Yes, but do you have any names of theologians who do what you suggest? I’d genuinely like top read their opinions!
So far, all you’ve done is say the equivalent of ‘they do this’ or ‘they do that’. Who are ‘they’?
In the academic world, including Bible Studies or Theology, making such accusations as this without providing any basic evidence would have you, at best, ignored. I really want to read the work of some of the people of whose writings you complain!

Peace.

 

[rcjones]

Yes, but do you have any names of theologians who do what you suggest? I’d genuinely like top read their opinions!
So far, all you’ve done is say the equivalent of ‘they do this’ or ‘they do that’. Who are ‘they’?
In the academic world, including Bible Studies or Theology, making such accusations as this without providing any basic evidence would have you, at best, ignored. I really want to read the work of some of the people of whose writings you complain!

The high priest who leads the extreme view of it is Walter Kaiser. Those who subscribe to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics make the same claim that the OT writers could only write literally about historical events they knew of.

Please introduce me to one who even mentions the Judah-Tamar narrative as a prophecy of the birth of Christ.

I suspect that you have not understood what I have said. Certainly there are writers who point to the scriptures quoted by Matthew and say that they were fulfilled. That is not at all what I am talking about. I am specifically talking about the fact that they do not address the ‘how’ of reading the Old Testament.

Out if the theologians who do not subscribe to Kaiser’s denial of a spiritual layer to the scriptures, there may be some who identify the pun of Ya Shuwa, though I haven’t found them.

But there is not a single theologian I have found in ten years of searching, who takes the position that the apostles were teaching us how to use pun to read the prophecy of the Old Testament. I have been a part of this forum for a long time. It has been the topic of many discussions that I am sorry you missed out on. But seeing how it is a side issue to the point I am making in this post I will not go into the detail again.

As I said, you cannot provide a single theologian who will point to the Judah-Tamar narrative who explains that Matthew was showing the fulfillment of the prophecy in Gen 38. Instead it is treated as new information, for which we are to take Matthew and Luke’s word.

So pick up any theologian you wish. I have been looking for even one theologian who identifies the prophecy of Judah-Tamar. A list of 100 who don’t doesn’t prove anything. A list of one who does, proves a lot. I am sure those in academia know this. I’d really like to read the writings of the people you assert to exist.

Bless you.

 

[melbanglican]

The high priest who leads the extreme view of it is Walter Kaiser. Those who subscribe to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics make the same claim that the OT writers could only write literally about historical events they knew of.

I suspect that you have not understood what I have said. Certainly there are writers who point to the scriptures quoted by Matthew and say that they were fulfilled. That is not at all what I am talking about. I am specifically talking about the fact that they do not address the ‘how’ of reading the Old Testament.

Out if the theologians who do not subscribe to Kaiser’s denial of a spiritual layer to the scriptures, there may be some who identify the pun of Ya Shuwa, though I haven’t found them.

But there is not a single theologian I have found in ten years of searching, who takes the position that the apostles were teaching us how to use pun to read the prophecy of the Old Testament. I have been a part of this forum for a long time. It has been the topic of many discussions that I am sorry you missed out on. But seeing how it is a side issue to the point I am making in this post I will not go into the detail again.

As I said, you cannot provide a single theologian who will point to the Judah-Tamar narrative who explains that Matthew was showing the fulfillment of the prophecy in Gen 38. Instead it is treated as new information, for which we are to take Matthew and Luke’s word.

So pick up any theologian you wish. I have been looking for even one theologian who identifies the prophecy of Judah-Tamar. A list of 100 who don’t doesn’t prove anything. A list of one who does, proves a lot. I am sure those in academia know this. I’d really like to read the writings of the people you assert to exist.

Bless you.

Good afternoon,

I notice that the second quote to which you responded was from one your own messages posted earlier!

I also notice that Walter Kaiser, and those ‘who subscribe to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics’ are what is often referred to pejoratively as ‘fundies’ and not really representative of the mainstream of Christian intellectualism. They certainly do not appear to be inconformity with the teachings of the Church.

Do you wonder why none of the theologians that you’ve read during ten years of searching picks up the points you make?

BTW, I’d still like some names. You must have somebody in mind in your critique. A list of ‘100 who don’t’ would actually be a great help if we were going to conduct a serious debate. I’m from an academic background, in which you have to provide solid evidence for your arguments/claims. It sometimes bothers people on this list slightly when I ask them to do so.

Peace be with you.

 

[rcjones]

Good afternoon,

I notice that the second quote to which you responded was from one your own messages posted earlier!

Yes. I repeated it since you have missed the point yet again.

I also notice that Walter Kaiser, and those ‘who subscribe to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics’ are what is often referred to pejoratively as ‘fundies’ and not really representative of the mainstream of Christian intellectualism. They certainly do not appear to be inconformity with the teachings of the Church.

Do you wonder why none of the theologians that you’ve read during ten years of searching picks up the points you make?

Please provide me with one Catholic theologian who mentions it before you presume that I have only read ‘fundies’. I gave you the extreme and said it was the extreme. If you search this site, you will find Catholics who have adopted Kaiser’s position where I had to correct them with the teaching of their own church. The closest Catholic writer that I have found to even understanding the point is Clement.

BTW, I’d still like some names. You must have somebody in mind in your critique. A list of ‘100 who don’t’ would actually be a great help if we were going to conduct a serious debate. I’m from an academic background, in which you have to provide solid evidence for your arguments/claims. It sometimes bothers people on this list slightly when I ask them to do so.

Peace be with you.

I’m sorry. We’re not going to have a serious debate. It was a secondary issue of my post which you have elevated to the primary position. Pick any hundred and they will not mention the fulfillment of the prophecy of Tamar by the birth of Christ. Even if I list 100 who do not mention it, it proves nothing, and I am disappointed that your academic background has not provided you with the ability to discern that. You see, I have claimed 100%. All you have to do is provide one which would invalidate my claim. Your list of one that contradicts my claim is much more important. Why in the world would we want to discuss the writings of a theologian who does not address the issue? There is nothing to see there. The fact that this escapes you means that we will not have a profitable conversation. The conversation begins with one theologian who speaks of Tamar in connection with the birth of Christ.

Blessings.

 

[melbanglican]

Yes. I repeated it since you have missed the point yet again.

Please provide me with one Catholic theologian who mentions it before you presume that I have only read ‘fundies’. I gave you the extreme and said it was the extreme. If you search this site, you will find Catholics who have adopted Kaiser’s position where I had to correct them with the teaching of their own church. The closest Catholic writer that I have found to even understanding the point is Clement.

I’m sorry. We’re not going to have a serious debate. It was a secondary issue of my post which you have elevated to the primary position. Pick any hundred and they will not mention the fulfillment of the prophecy of Tamar by the birth of Christ. Even if I list 100 who do not mention it, it proves nothing, and I am disappointed that your academic background has not provided you with the ability to discern that. You see, I have claimed 100%. All you have to do is provide one which would invalidate my claim. Your list of one that contradicts my claim is much more important. Why in the world would we want to discuss the writings of a theologian who does not address the issue? There is nothing to see there. The fact that this escapes you means that we will not have a profitable conversation. The conversation begins with one theologian who speaks of Tamar in connection with the birth of Christ.

Blessings.

A few points:

1. I ‘presume’ nothing. I took it for granted that you had read theologians from across the spectrum. The only ones you identified clearly were Evangelicals.
2. My point about identifying theologians still stands (your attempts to patronise me notwithstanding). Are you condemning Augustine of Hippo for failing to do as you insist a good theologian should? Or Teillhard de Chardin? If one is going to condemn a group of people for doing (or not doing) something, it is necessary to provide some concrete evidence thereof. That’s standard practice. All you would need to say is something to the effect of ‘I have read Catholic theologians from Clement and Augustine to Heidegger and have found no mention of …’
3. You still haven’t made clear your answer to my question of why theologians have not addressed the questions you consider to be so important. Why do you think that they have failed to do so?

I’m afraid you’re right. We’re not going to be able to have a serious debate on this.

Peace be with you.

 

[rcjones]

A few points:

1. I ‘presume’ nothing. I took it for granted that you had read theologians from across the spectrum. The only ones you identified clearly were Evangelicals.
2. My point about identifying theologians still stands (your attempts to patronise me notwithstanding). Are you condemning Augustine of Hippo for failing to do as you insist a good theologian should? Or Teillhard de Chardin? If one is going to condemn a group of people for doing (or not doing) something, it is necessary to provide some concrete evidence thereof. That’s standard practice. All you would need to say is something to the effect of ‘I have read Catholic theologians from Clement and Augustine to Heidegger and have found no mention of …’

Now you have taken a secondary point of my post and exaggerated it so that I am condemning someone. Augustine does not mention the prophecy of Tamar being fulfilled by Jesus. Neither does Teillhard de Chardin. Neither does Heidegger in anything that is in English. How many ways can I say none? Must I document all my search engine queries, books in my library, books read on line, personal correspondence with authors of books on Hermeneutics, conversations with seminary presidents over ten years? Not in my knowledge, not in their knowledge and not in search engines. Not in the knowledge of one person on CAF since I have been here.

You still can’t produce one, yet you insist I document all my research. The reason people get annoyed is that asking for academic style documentation in a forum is considered rude. You imply that I am exaggerating without evidence (all you need is one), yet you claim that I am condemning without evidence. Seems like you don’t like to play by the same rules that you demand of others.

1. You still haven’t made clear your answer to my question of why theologians have not addressed the questions you consider to be so important. Why do you think that they have failed to do so?

The ‘why’ is not part of my post. It is a completely different topic, rather than just a secondary point of the post. I don’t think I am obligated to follow your rabbit trails. Thanks.

I’m afraid you’re right. We’re not going to be able to have a serious debate on this.

Peace be with you.

Ciao. I will pass on further conversation thanks.

 

[PJM]

=Charlotte408;8427260]Hi everyone, so I’m reading Matthew for RCIA, and … at the begginning, there’s these footnotes that say-

‘The unknown author, we’ll call Matthew, for the sake of convenience’ and then something about a ‘source Q’…

I don’t really understand this. Are they saying that they don’t really know who wrote Matthew, and that most of it seems to come from Mark, mixed with an outside source?

BTW - I am LOVING this Catholic bible. I’ve read most of the bible before, but, I’m seeing things or reading them in a way that I can tell I’ve haven’t really gotten most of what it’s trying to say. The structure, footnotes, all kinds of awesome.

FYI

From: www.agapebiblestudy.com
"For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.
Bishop Eusebius, Church History, 3.24.6

Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second was that of Mark, who composed it under Peter’s guidance. … The third, the Gospel which was praised by Paul, was that of Luke, written for gentile converts. Last of all, there is that of John.
Bishop Eusebius quoting Origen (185-253/54), head of the Catholic Catechetical School in Alexandria, Egypt, from the first of his books on the Gospel of Matthew,
Church History, 6.25.4

Authorship

Most of the Bible books do not have the name of an author in the text. It is a fact that is in itself significant, since it indicates that the inspired writers of Sacred Scripture did not see themselves as authors but saw themselves as bearing witness in written form to God’s Holy Spirit inspired message of love and salvation to a fallen humanity. According to the Catholic tradition and to the testimony of the Church Fathers, the inspired writer of the Gospel of Matthew is the Apostle Matthew, who was also known as Levi the tax collector.

The Greek name Maththaios or Matthaios is derived from the Hebrew or Aramaic Matta’i, Mattiya’, or Mattiyah-all shortened forms of the name Mattih-yah(u) that are built upon the Hebrew words natan (“he gave”) and Yah(u), a shortened form of the Divine Name “YHWH” /Yahweh and meaning "“gift of Yahweh” (Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4, “Matthew”). The name “Matthew” is found in the lists of Jesus’ chosen Apostles (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13) and in the account of the call of a tax collector named Matthew in the Gospel of Matthew: As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the customs post. He said to him, “Follow me.” And he got up and followed him (Mt 9:9).

In the Gospels of Mark and Luke, he is identified with the tax collector called “Levi.” According to Church tradition this is one and the same man who left his ordinary life to follow Jesus:"

Hope this helps you,

God Bless,
Pat