89 chapter project: Matthew

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
chansen said:
How little sense does something have to make, for this to make *more* sense?
Click to expand...
Of course none of this will make sense to you, but I do believe in the Holy Spirit and Mary and Jesus having the Holy Spirit upon conception does make more sense to me....and not becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit as some Christians are used to interpreting it.
 
GeoFee said:
I have not thought much about Joseph’s influence on Jesus. My thoughts tend towards Mary as a primary influence on Jesus. I see him as an infant in her kitchen. Absorbing her spirit of care.
Click to expand...
I'm sure she was a caring mother, but they did leave Jesus behind in Jerusalem before going home to Nazareth when He was 12. It took both Mary and Joseph a day to notice.
 
Mendalla said:
The details don't really matter, since it's the myth that informs our understanding of things today, but recognizing that it is myth and that Jesus most likely did have a human mother and father, does matter. And that can play into our understanding of the myth and what meaning we take away from it.
Click to expand...
Are you able to summarize the meaning you take away from the myth? Is it just to set the stage for what comes later or is there more to it?
 
Waterfall said:
I'm sure she was a caring mother, but they did leave Jesus behind in Jerusalem before going home to Nazareth when He was 12. It took both Mary and Joseph a day to notice.
Click to expand...
Yes, that will be a fun story to discuss when we get to it!
 
Waterfall said:
I'm sure she was a caring mother, but they did leave Jesus behind in Jerusalem before going home to Nazareth when He was 12. It took both Mary and Joseph a day to notice.
Click to expand...

The template for Home Alone, I guess.:D
 
paradox3 said:
Are you able to summarize the meaning you take away from the myth? Is it just to set the stage for what comes later or is there more to it?
Click to expand...

No, the birth narrative is a fairly major part of the "myth" in and of itself. I might take a mini-essay to discuss so later.:nerd:
 
Matthew's gospel is often said to be addressed to a Jewish audience. I have always known its birth narrative differs from Luke's but I am really being struck by this fact as I do my reading. Maybe it is the time of year with Advent starting yesterday.

Where are the shepherds abiding in the fields? Watching their flocks by night? :love:

Luke has a nicer story than this one with its slaughter of those babies.
 
paradox3 said:
Matthew's gospel is often said to be addressed to a Jewish audience. I have always known its birth narrative differs from Luke's but I am really being struck by this fact as I do my reading. Maybe it is the time of year with Advent starting yesterday.

Where are the shepherds abiding in the fields? Watching their flocks by night? :love:

Luke has a nicer story than this one with its slaughter of those babies.
Click to expand...

What I always find humorous is how Christianity has managed to mash the two up, so you have both shepherds AND magi. At the same time. Makes even less sense than either of them individually if you think about it, esp. since the dating is screwed up. If you take the statements about when it happened in the two Gospels and then compare to history, you get a different date for Jesus' birth from each, which to me is more evidence these aren't literal stories but mythology.

In the end, from a purely historical standpoint, all you can say is that Jesus was born and his parents were (highly probably) named Mary and Joseph. Period. Everything else is up for discussion, including when and where. And that's assuming you're not one of the people who thinks Jesus' very existence is dubious.
 
@paradox3 and others,
For the parables and metaphors in the Gospels, I strongly recommend this book.
It's wonderful and offers a lot of fresh perspectives I have not thought of or read before.
 
paradox3 said:
Please jump in as we work our way through the chapters of the 4 gospels! Insight from all sources is most welcome.
Click to expand...
I'll try to! I have a big load of readings already, but I guess it's a very good idea to read the first chapters right now that we're in Advent.
 
This exercise is proving to be very satisfying. Much more fun than reading the chapters and scribbling my reflections in a notebook.
Thank you all. :love:
 
paradox3 said:
Question: Do you know what would have happened if it had been Three Wise Women instead
of Three Wise Men?

Answer:

1. They would have asked for directions.
2. They would have arrived on time.
3. They would have helped deliver the baby.
4. They would have cleaned the stable.
5. They would have made a casserole.
6. They would have brought practical gifts.

I did not make this up. :)
It has been floating around for a few years but I like it.
Click to expand...

The Bible does not actually say that the number of persons who came was three, nor does it call them, "wise men." Also, they didn't see Jesus in a stable but rather in a house.
 
Jae said:
The Bible does not actually say that the number of persons who came was three, nor does it call them, "wise men." Also, they didn't see Jesus in a stable but rather in a house.
Click to expand...

I think P3 actually knows all that. It's a joke that plays on the traditional image. Emphasis on JOKE. Apparently unsafe's inability to perceive humour is rubbing off on you.
 
Mendalla said:
What I always find humorous is how Christianity has managed to mash the two up, so you have both shepherds AND magi. At the same time. Makes even less sense than either of them individually if you think about it, esp. since the dating is screwed up. If you take the statements about when it happened in the two Gospels and then compare to history, you get a different date for Jesus' birth from each, which to me is more evidence these aren't literal stories but mythology.

In the end, from a purely historical standpoint, all you can say is that Jesus was born and his parents were (highly probably) named Mary and Joseph. Period. Everything else is up for discussion, including when and where. And that's assuming you're not one of the people who thinks Jesus' very existence is dubious.
Click to expand...

While many have depicted the shepherds and magi being together in such things as Christmas plays and nativity sets, such an event occurring is not biblical. The shepherds visit Jesus very soon after he was born, while he is still an infant. The magi, however, visit him when he is a child.

"And lo! the star, that they saw in the east, went before them, till it came, and stood above, where the child was. And they saw the star, and joyed with a full great joy. And they entered into the house, and found the child with Mary, his mother; and they felled down, and worshipped him. And when they had opened their treasures, they offered to him gifts, gold, incense, and myrrh." - Matthew 2:9b-11 (WYC).
 
Mendalla said:
I think P3 actually knows all that. It's a joke that plays on the traditional image. Emphasis on JOKE. Apparently unsafe's inability to perceive humour is rubbing off on you.
Click to expand...
It was a joke - but many people in and outside the church take the imagery of three wise men at the stable quite literally. I think Jae was right to point this out. In fact, I was about to point it out when I found that Jae had already done so. Nothing to do with an inability to perceive humour. Everything to do with a realization that many people don't understand the erroneous conflation of the Matthean and Lucan birth narratives.
 
paradox3 said:
Reflection on Matthew 2.

How are we to understand this chapter? Is it persuasive writing? Mythology? A personal faith statement of the gospel writer?
Click to expand...

Why have you not listed as a possibility that the chapter is an inspired account of what actually happened?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top