Chris Weimer

That couldn't be more on target with what Matthew thinks - remember - the kingdom will be taken away from the children, and many will come from the east and the west to sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the feast in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Gudjonsson

Jesus supposedly said a lot of things before his crucifixion (and not so much after it). Can we throw all his words out? Why was he teaching us, if we were not to heed his teachings? Who do you follow, Jesus or Paul?

Anyways... I think it is obvious that the author of Matthew was simply into a different kind of Christianity than Paul.

From the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7

24 Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock:

25 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and if fell not: for it was founded upon the rock.

26 And every one that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand:

27 and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall thereof.
---------

Matthew is all about DOING while Paul is about "faith".

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father Matthew 7:21

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:19 (notice, he is not talking about the past only - whosoever shall (futur tense))

Jesus does not abolish the law, only makes the standard even higher:

Matthew 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Than he goes on comparing hate with murder etc)



I do not remember how many times I taught about the Sermon on the Mount, but I preached it twice by heart, word for word, in two different churches.

Chris Weimer

While this is true, I'm not sure you have what either Paul or Matthew had in mind.

What does this have to do with unclean meat or circumcision?

Evidence from Paul that he neglects faith, otherwise the two aren't mutually incompatible.

And what are the commandments? The summary thereof:

Matthew 22:37-40, “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Yes, Jesus does not abolish the Law - he fulfills the Law and introduces his new system.

That's quite nice. Marcion also taught in churches as well. I think Anton LeVey has his own church - where you preach doesn't matter a tid bit. Come out with an article in a scholarly journal and then we'll talk.

Gudjonsson

Even though you say that Matthew was perhaps into a different type of Christianity than Paul, your understanding of Matthew seems to me to be colored by your effort to harmonize it with rest of the N.T. This of course is a valid way to think, only if you assume that the N.T. is relatively harmonious.


Deal with Matthew 5:19 in connection with Matthew 23:2-3.

Matthew 5:19
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (This he says in connection with him not coming to abolish the law!)

Btw, when Jesus says in Matthew 22:37-40 what are the greatest commandments, he is not saying that the other commandments, even the least of them (5:19) are to be disobeyed.

Matthew 23:2-3
(Here Jesus is speaking) The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe

Jesus apparently said a lot of things, that were only valid for a maximum of 3 years. Your view relegates a lot of his teachings to secondary importance

My comment on where I have preached was only a personal note. (I remember when I myself was a Christian preaching, now I am an atheist, things change, kind of remark, and was not meant to give my case any weight.)

The author of Matthew was into works, and observing laws of scripture - Paul was into faith. Perhaps Matthew thought that the ceremonial sacrifices etc in the temple were no longer necessary after the cross. For me, it is hard to tell. Even the Jews in the second century – abandoned it, and replaced it with prayer and piety at home. Pseudo-Deity did not only have the ceremonial laws of the old testament in mind in this thread. He brought up the question of both ceremonial and moral laws of the O.T., and for example homosexuality. I think at minimum, Matthew thinks that the moral law of the O.T. is to be upheld 100%

Chris Weimer

I certainly don't think that the NT is "harmonious", if by that term you mean all assuming the same theology, christology, soteriology, eschatology, ecclesiology, etc... I deal with Matthew through Matthew, not the NT. In fact, I'll readily admit that I'm not up to par on Pauline or Johannine studies, and have much catching up to do with Luke-Acts.

I've dealt with it before. You're cheery-picking what Matthew has Jesus saying and ignoring the whole of the gospel.

Jesus, obviously a Jew, even in Matthew's eyes, was a Jew, and his first mission was for the Jews. This is the historical Jesus, and thus any attempts by the NT to deal with Jesus has to first grapple with this issue. Jesus does not come to abolish the Law - he comes to fulfill it. By Jesus' crucifixion, in Matthew, the Law is superseded by a new faith - the faith of the centurion - where instead you should focus on the "weightier matters of the Law: Justice, Mercy, and faith." (Mt. 23.23)

Before Jesus' death, Jesus is still inferior to God - he is still working under the Jewish paradigm - but the few acts of the gentiles, and the combined hypocrisy of the Pharisees - dominant at the time of Matthew - force Jesus into a new paradigm. The shift moves from Jews and the Law to those who'll inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Being Jewish, without being "Christian", is condemned as the Jews crucify Jesus (his blood on our hands and our children, which is later seen in the destruction of the Temple), and from there Jesus, who before told his disciples to stay away from the nations, secondly told his disciples, after he was risen, to go and preach to all the nations.

Interesting note about "secondary importance" - I'm not sure if that's the right term. Remember, Jesus came from somewhere - Judaea - but his mission ending up being for something else. Why was the Temple destroyed? Matthew explains - Jesus tried to teach the Jews the proper way, but in the end, they condemned themselves and therefore those who follow after Jesus become the new inheritors of the Kingdom.

I'm not so sure you can say that Christians can ignore what Jesus taught, but it must be viewed through Matthew's eyes, and not modern Jewish/Christian eyes. That would be anachronistic.

I already asked for where Paul thinks that works ought to be neglected in favor of faith. Merely asserting him to do so does not make it fact.

Gudjonsson

[QUOTE=Chris Weimer;4821344] I did not say that Paul said that we ought to neglect works, he certainly did not - but we are not justified by the works but by faith according to Paul. He stresses that. You are saved by doing good - by doing what Jesus taught you to do, by obeying the commandments, by being a true follower of Jesus in Matthew.

I precisely try to look at Matthew through the eyes of the author, and not through modern Jewish/Christian eyes, precisely because that is anachronistic. And Matthew believes, as I see it, that the way to salvation is by doing the stuff Jesus teaches you to do, both for the Jews of Jesus day, and for anyone, and the teachings of Jesus are based on the O.T., and he does not abolish any of it.

I need to consult my Bible at home... but now I am going to sleep, it is 4:50 in the morning in Iceland.

ozm8

To teach the meaning of the scriptures?

---I, in time, go straight to a rejection of the bearaucrats, the Pharisees!
Christ threw over the tables of the moneylenders!!!! He told/ was telling bureaucrats they may have had an understanding of God, BUT THEY WERE WRONG!!!
Saducees---lay teachers?--closer but I guess infected by the powers that be?
John and Christ!!!-fanatical teachers of one, glorious truth?
---Is there a glorious truth in philosophy?
Can God and consciousness ever be one?
Get rid of God, can consciousness make a deal with the infinite? lol
And so I love the Bible, you? cheers Stu

ozm8

Paul sought temporal power---Matthew was the friend of Christ?
To know someone is not to abuse their memory?
The human aspect shows through?
---and so we see Christ as a gentle, good, and wise man?
God is, but that is all he is!!! lol.........did I say but? cheers Stu