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:
It's the "Jesus doesn't sound like we want him to be, so let's look for alternate translations or explanations so we don't have to think less of him" approach
Click to expand...

It seems that you have never heard of, let alone read," The Five Gospels". It is excellent as one of many commentaries.


QUOTE
This is not done, I assume, when people nod approvingly at the attributed words of Jesus. Only when Jesus is being an a**hole, do Christians go looking for excuses.[/QUOTE]

And you would be wrong. I was not alone when I found out that many of my favourite quotations and parables attributed to Jesus were questionable at best - including almost all of Jesus' words in the Gospel of John.
 
Chance translations are part of God's dark side ... bloody humorous? Quirks in empty space resemble that ... as flying earth spirits ... fertile, or fecundity?

Know your crap about redacted translations and how people will translate lies to sway you ...

The secret is to listen quietly to the silence and you may hear a greater psyche that is out-of-here at present! Tis all beyond the opinionated, editors ...

Profundity is hated by powers ... creates superfluousness ... and poof they're gone ... leaving absence ... virtue of abstract?
 
Seeler said:
And you would be wrong. I was not alone when I found out that many of my favourite quotations and parables attributed to Jesus were questionable at best - including almost all of Jesus' words in the Gospel of John.
Click to expand...
It was quite shocking for me to learn that the four gospels were not eye witness accounts. I grew up thinking they were exactly this. "Thanks be to God for this is glorious gospel." I remember the reader always saying.

Over the years I have come to view the gospels more as faith testimony than anything else. And I have been told that each gospel was written for a specific purpose or intended audience. Matthew certainly seems to be written with a Jewish audience in mind.
 
Summary: Matthew 24:1-51

1. Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple.

2. Jesus prophecies about end times. There will be deceit, wars, famines, pestilence and earthquakes. Tribulation, betrayal, false prophets. Lawlessness and loss of love.

3. Then the Son of Man will return. He will send his angels and collect the elect.

4. The parable of the fig tree. As you can read the sign of summer from the fig tree, you will know the end is near when you see these things. "Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will by no means pass away." (24:33 NKJ)

5. No one knows the day or hour. The Son of Man will come when you do not expect Him.
 
I think this is some of the best evidence for Jesus being an "apocalyptic" preacher. For all liberals and progressives talk about his message being kind of a Gandhi social justice agenda, like most prophets, he seemed to see his times as end times. I'm fairly sure he believed it, too. It wasn't metaphor. Many of the Old Testament prophets had elements of it in their preaching as well as did many of the preachers of his day. However, I think the key is in the "no one knows" element. It's a "live every day as if it was the last" kind of message.

I'm sure this will be one of the "we're not really sure he taught this" items (Bette? Seeler?) but it would be unlikely if he didn't have some kind of eschatological belief. The fact is, most prophets did.
 
Reflection: Matthew 24:1-51

The theme of end times runs all through Matthew's gospel.

Now we see the prophecy about the second coming of the Son of Man.

The parables in Matthew read as though there will be significant judgement at that time. And in today's chapter we have the idea of the "elect".

As one who pretty much holds a "univeralist" view of salvation, I am starting to wonder where I acquired it. It most definitely didn't come from the book of Matthew.
 
paradox3 said:
As one who pretty much holds a "univeralist" view of salvation, I am starting to wonder where I acquired it. It most definitely didn't come from the book of Matthew.
Click to expand...

Of course, there are multiple forms of universalism, some of which might fit better than others. Some believe there is literally no Hell at all and all will be saved on the last day. Others that Hell does exist, but is more like Purgatory and that those in it will someday be saved (ie. damnation is real but not eternal). And, of course, most UUs and some factions of progressive Christians have largely decided it is all moot, that there is no afterlife and universalism is more about universal Truth than universal dispensation of Grace.
 
Earlier on this thread we were discussing what it means to follow Jesus in our time.

Which aspect(s) of Jesus do we follow? The ethical teacher? The healer? The apocalyptic preacher?

Or something else? The revolutionary perhaps?

If Jesus is the manifestation of God's character, do we see God in all aspects of Jesus of Nazareth?
 
paradox3 said:
Which aspect(s) of Jesus do we follow? The ethical teacher? The healer? The apocalyptic preacher?

Or something else? The revolutionary perhaps?
Click to expand...

Seems to depend on the person. I think most UUs would go with social justice prophet/teacher, which is really a variation of your "ethical teacher" combined with the "revolutionary".

I'm a bit at sea with Jesus myself. While I know his teachings on forgiveness and love are definitely engrained in my spirituality, I'm not sure how I really see him. Mythologized figurehead embodying the teachings and values of Christianity?? Maybe.

paradox3 said:
If Jesus is the manifestation of God's character, do we see God in all aspects of Jesus of Nazareth?
Click to expand...

If he is fully Divine and fully human, we should see both in all aspects, which becomes problematic. Is the angry Jesus lashing out fully Divine? Is the forgiving Jesus fully human? Once you accept the idea of Jesus somehow being Divinity incarnate, the struggle is how that fits with the character we see.

Again, I'm a bit at sea with God. My pantheism suggests we all embody something Divine; Existence itself. But that's a rather different sort of Divinity than a traditional "God". It's impersonal and really is just existence in all its beauty, wonder, and, yes, deadly ambiguity.
 
The notion of Jesus being fully human and fully divine has always been a conundrum for me. I can make sense of it mystically or metaphorically but not factually. If one does not accept the idea of the Holy Spirit impregnating Mary (which I don't) is there any way the dual nature of Jesus can be taken literally?

Some United Church folks see Jesus as a role model or exemplar. What we call all aspire to be, perhaps. Thus we all have a divine nature as well as a human one. And the hope that is born with the babe in the manger is present in all new life.

Which reminds me. I forgot to list Jewish mystic as an aspect of Jesus.
 
In Matthew 24:3-5, Christ's missionaries asked him about the prophecy he earlier gave, which they associated with the end of the world.

The belief which the Jews held is that the world will end with the Last Judgment. This is indicated also in Christ's answer, when he told them to guard against error and deception.

The signs that would come before both Jerusalem's destruction and the end of the world would demand calmness and bravery.

The first sign would be the coming of false Christs. They would come in his name, they would claim identity with Christ. By their brashness they would impress many. Many would be deceived and trust in them.

This was true at Jerusalem's destruction, and it's still true today. The number of false teachers with their churches continues to multiply quickly.
 
Last edited:
paradox3 said:
Earlier on this thread we were discussing what it means to follow Jesus in our time.

Which aspect(s) of Jesus do we follow? The ethical teacher? The healer? The apocalyptic preacher?

Or something else? The revolutionary perhaps?

If Jesus is the manifestation of God's character, do we see God in all aspects of Jesus of Nazareth?
Click to expand...

I believe that I and millions of others follow the Jesus who was not only a great teacher, healer and preacher but who is also the Savior and the Son of God.

I don't see Jesus as a revolutionary. I think he was just righteous in a fallen world.
 
BetteTheRed said:
And then there's the "cleansing of the Temple"...that never feels "non-violent" to me.
Click to expand...

Jesus certainly wasn't a militant, but he had a b*tch of a temper at times and could lash out. At least that's how I read that and a couple other pieces.

Jae said:
What I'm saying is that I don't think Jesus was being revolutionary for the sake of being revolutionary. I believe he was just being who he was.
Click to expand...

But very few revolutionaries, save certain types of anarchist, are revolutionary just for the sake of being revolutionary. Most have been hurt by the system in some way and are struggling, violently or not, to change that system. They are being who they are, just as you say Jesus was.
 
Jae ---Your Baby Baptism cleansing sins is your wishful thinking and False Doctrine ----there is not a scripture that says Baby Baptism takes a baby's sins away cause a baby cannot committed any sin to be cleansed from ------you don't become a Sinner until you break a law -----we are all born with the nature to sin but we have to know right from wrong and be able to be mobile to commit a sin -----we sin because we want to not because we have to -------we don't have to commit murder or steal or abuse or commit adultery ----we have a choice to do these things or not ----that is up to us ------

Proverbs 22:6 (CEV)
6 Teach your children
right from wrong,
and when they are grown
they will still do right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top