Systematic wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 10:46 am
gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 9:35 pm
Wanted some insight into the Gospel of Matthew.
OK gaffo; I'm going to need a recess if I am to provide evidence of my conjecture. I don't exactly remember chapter and verse for everything. Also, like you said, Matthew was presumably raised in the Jewish tradition; therefore, if Jesus truly wanted the Jews to be part of the Roman tradition, that doesn't necessarily mean that Matthew completely agreed with that proposition. But I will look in my Bible, and take note of any Roman ideals that I recognize in Matthew's Gospel, and I will get back to this thread.
Also, I would like to reiterate that I am hypothesizing.
Alright, recess over.
On further reading of the Gospel of Matthew, I did come up with some possible insight:
The Gospel of Matthew was definitely written with the Jews as intended readers. Jesus was in fact trying to use the Roman method of oratories on the Rostra. (for example, see the Parable of the Sower and the Parable of the weeds in Matthew 13.) I think that Jesus was trying to copy the method that the Romans used to communicate to the people, for his own ends. That much seems mostly clear. You (disciples) sow my seeds; they'll sow their seeds. When the people decide which method to follow, they will be discernible as sheep and goats. Day of wrath for the goats, et cetera.
What is not so clear, and what I am now posing as a hypothetical is this: What if Jesus didn't die as soon as he did?
He sent his disciples to "sow his seed". He said, "I'll come back at some random time 'like a thief in the night' to make sure that you are doing a proper job of it." So perhaps, he was thinking, not that he would come back in some miraculous way after he had died; but rather, he's just going to go around Israel in his lifetime, making sure that they are still "feeding his sheep".
What if Jesus didn't know that he was about to be tortured and crucified, and he was actually trying to run Israel as a Utopia during his lifetime?
Thanks for noting my prior post and looking to your bible per Matthew.
about me as a person that is interested in history and religion (esp the latter per the former) - though i do get glee over Dogma, and how it also changes over time (i.e. how Leviethen was originally Taimat, and only later equated with Satan/etc).
Per Jesus the person (I'm an Athiest, but affirm that there was a man whom the many - 20? or so works in the NT mentions - i.e. i assume the man must have existed, otherwise there would not be 20+ works written about him (IMO - yes it is possible he never existed, but not probable - i run on probability and so assume he actually existed - though left no 1st person record (it also probable that he was not literate per the general statistics of the population of Near East 2000 yrs ago - literacy was 10 percent - not saying he could not right nor that he did not - just saying per statistics he most likey could not - either way there is no written record from the man whom i beleive existed.
what we have are 20+ works about the man from folks that existed from 35 (Saul's letters) - 50 Mark - 65 Matt/Luke and 75 John/The Apocalypse/etc....years after Jesus' death.
per Matt we have Matt's story of a man that lived 65 yrs prior - is Matt recounting legends of that man? (I think he is - i think he had "q" and one other work (both lost to history), and Mark (the earliest surviving Gospel) to go by.
but BUT i thnk Matt had a personal philosphy about the man he wrote about also! and he included his philosophy in his work. namely in it "Jewsih centric" views - Matt goes out of his way to link OT works - i.e. like Isiah's prophecy about a future jewish leader being born from a young women (changing it to a Virgin.....why would he do so? to me - this seems kinda Roman to me, and maybe author of Matt was more Hellanized than he though he was when he wrote the work)
the conventional wisdom is that the author of Luke was more the Hellenized Jew than Matt (due to Luke not making an issue of linking the OT to the NT via prophetic writtings) - however maybe the author of Luke just did not have an interest in that? maybe his religious philosphy did not mandate the same mindset as the author of Matt?
For instance, Luke includes views of Heaven and Hell - about the one in Heaven wishing to give water to the one in Hell..........which reads more Judaic (more in line with Essene views than Matt) which may suggest Luke was no more Hellenize than Matt.
now per knowing a little about History, both authors were probably equal Jews and also equally partially Hellenized via being born in a land that had by their time been ruled by Rome for nearly and century.
BTW IMO (and my fav Gospel -and the most accurate per the man Jesus IMO - is Mark due to it being the oldest). and in it you will see more Jewish thought. for intsance, there is the account where Jesus is contending with Demons and the Demons (legion) say "We know who you are" - and before they can call out Jesus' "True Name" - Jesus commands their silence!!!!! This is all about the Tetragramaton. for if you know the "true name" of your opponent ( be it god or demons) - you will have power over them. This is why when Abraham asks for YHWH's name on Mount Siani, God refused to give it and instead say "I am" (i.e no I aint giving you my name fucker! - just know that i am your boss!!!!!).
also, we know that Saul and Mark are more accurate - IMO - than latter works, because they both do not affirm the virgin birth mythos.
Mark implies Jesus was just an good guy (the best guy that lived at the time) who was adopted as YHWH's Son for being the best good guy.
Saul is less clear, Saul is more about talking (boasting) about himself than talking about Jesus, the only time he mentions Jesus is that "he was born via a young woman" - i do think that Saul did not equate Jesus the man with the post ressurected Jesus he worshiped. AFAI=can tell via his cryptic works - he does not explain his understanding of Jesus in any of his letters - is that he thought there was an angelic being that "entered Jesus" sometime around the latter's death, and it is this angelic being that he worshiped as the Son of God and defeating the Devil via the former's ressurection.
thanks for reply Sir.
.