Podcasts about matthean

Episode 125In Part 1 of our two-part series on the Synoptic Problem, we begin with a big-picture overview of the issue: Why do Matthew, Mark, and Luke share so much in common—and where do they differ? Michael then presents the case for Matthean priority, drawing from D.A. Black's Why Four Gospels? He outlines a historical sequence where Matthew writes first, Luke follows with a chronological account under Paul's guidance in Caesarea, and Peter, to support Luke's Gospel, teaches from both Matthew and Luke in Rome. John Mark, serving as Peter's interpreter, later compiles these teachings into what becomes the Gospel of Mark.Find our videocast here: https://youtu.be/RxKXIS3SLEsMusic from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):⁠https://uppbeat.io/t/reakt-music/deep-stone⁠License code: 2QZOZ2YHZ5UTE7C8Find more Take 2 Theology content at https://take2pod.wordpress.com/

Episode NotesEpisode 93: Matthew 5 - Blessings, Curses, and Moving Mountains: The Architecture of Matthew's GospelMarch 4, 2025 - Host: Dr. Gregory HallIn this episode we're diving into Matthew chapter 5 and we'll notice a fascinating aspect of Matthew gospel. Matthew organizes Jesus' major addresses into five distinct sermons. The first and the last of which are delivered on mountains. and today, we'll unpack a link back to the Old Testament story of Moses and Joshua.Resources Referenced and/or Read:Thanks to Dr. Warren Gage for the bulk of the material in this episode. Gage, W. A. (2010). Essays in Biblical Theology (pp. 63–65). Warren A. Gage. - The Blessings and Cursings upon Gerizim and Ebal - The law of Moses instructed the people, when Joshua led them into the good land promised to the fathers, to assemble before the mountains of Gerizim and Ebal for a ceremony reaffirming their fidelity to the Lord and the law of the covenant (Deut 27–28). The entire nation of Israel was to be arranged in ranks by their tribes in the valley between the slopes of the two mountains. Six tribes stood upon the skirts of Ebal, and six tribes stood upon the skirts of Gerizim. Joshua spoke all the law of Moses in the hearing of the twelve tribes of Israel (Josh 8:30–35). The six tribes upon Gerizim spoke the blessings that would be poured out as long as the nation obeyed the law and the covenant (Deut 28:1–14). The six tribes upon Ebal spoke the curses that would come upon the nation if they disobeyed the law (Deut 27:15–28). All the tribes affirmed that, upon their disobedience, a nation from afar would come upon them like the eagle, besieging the fortified walls of Israel (Deut 28:49–52) and driving all the people into exile among the nations (Deut 28:64–68). As each group of six tribes spoke the blessings and the cursings of the law, the six tribes opposite answered with an antiphonal avowal of their fidelity to the covenant and their imprecatory oath of obedience to the Lord. In the New Testament, Matthew's Gospel portrays Jesus as the True Joshua presiding over a new ceremony of blessing and cursing. To recognize this portrayal, we must understand something of the structure of the first Gospel. Matthew arranges his Gospel around seven mountains. These mountains are 1) the mountain of the temptation (4:8), 2) the mountain of the beatitudes (5:1), 3) the mountain of the separation (14:23), 4) the mountain of the feeding in the wilderness (15:29), 5) the mountain of the transfiguration (17:1), 6) the mountain of the Olivet discourse (24:3), and 7) the mountain of the commissioning (28:16). The seven Matthean mountains are arranged chiastically, with corresponding pairs arrayed around the central mountain of the wilderness feeding. The mountains relevant to the Joshua typology are the second mountain and the sixth, which frame Matthew's five discourses. The second mountain is the mountain of the beatitudes in Galilee, the site of the first discourse called the “Sermon on the Mount” (5:1–8:28). The corresponding sixth mountain, the site of the last or “Olivet Discourse,” is the mountain before Jerusalem (24:3–26:1). Matthew's typology of the True Joshua is built around the relationship between the blessings pronounced upon the mount of the beatitudes in Galilee and the woes (or curses) spoken against the Pharisees in Jerusalem. By juxtaposing these mountains, Matthew anticipates the blessings to descend upon the mountain of the Gentiles, which has become Gerizim, and the destruction to come upon Jerusalem, which has become Ebal. Jesus solemnly pronounces nine beatitudes upon the mountain in Galilee (Matt 5:3–12). Eight corresponding woes or curses are enumerated against Jerusalem, framed as antiphonal responses to the beatitudes spoken in Galilee. The juxtaposition of Matthew's two mountains constitutes the restatement of the solemn ceremony at Shechem, and darkly foretells the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the people for their disobedience to the law of Moses in rejecting the Prophet of whom Moses spoke (Matt 24:2).Matthew Study Resources at the Rethinking Scripture Website: https://rethinkingscripture.com/matthew-study-resources/Here are a few resources regarding my first tour guide in Israel, Halvor Ronning.New American Standard Bible: 1995 update (Mt 4:18–22). (1995). The Lockman Foundation.Show Music:Intro/Outro - "Growth" by Armani Delos SantosTransition Music - produced by Jacob A. HallPodcast Website:The All-America Listener Challenge Updates: https://rethinkingscripture.comMy New Podcast Studio... The Upper Room: https://rethinkingscripture.com/podcast-episodes/More information about The Homes and Help Initiative: https://rethinkingscripture.com/homes-help-initiative/Sister site: RethinkingRest.comRethinking Rest... the Book is now available. The Rethinking Rest audiobook is available only on Audible: More information: https://rethinkingrest.com/the-book/Social Media:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RethinkingScripture Twitter: @RethinkingStuffInstagram: Rethinking_ScriptureYouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6YCLg2UldJiA0dsg0KkvLAPowered and distributed by Simplecast.

Questions Covered: 01:52 – Question: What exactly is Paul referring to in Galatians 3:1 when he says Christ was “publicly exhibited/portrayed as crucified”? Is it possible Paul knew of the Shroud of Turin? Or maybe he's referring to very early iconography of the Crucifixion? 05:30 – In the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, could it be logically deduced that Peter was exercising the ability to retain sins? 10:28 – If Jesus was born in 3 or 4 BC, and lived to be 33, would it be more accurate to say the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension took place in AD 29 or 30, as opposed to the commonly cited AD 33? 16:25 – Since Mary was preserved from original sin, did she experience sickness? 19:59 – If St. Joseph had children other than Jesus (as some traditions hold) why wouldn't they be the legal heirs to David's throne? 23:36 – What is your take on Revelation 6:10? 33:16 – How authoritative are the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s early decrees on traditional authorship (for example in 1914 the PBC declared Paul wrote Hebrews)? Now the PBC is not part of the magisterium, but at the time of these declarations it was. It seems like almost no Catholic scholar nowadays thinks Paul wrote Hebrews, but I don’t understand why the PBC’s earlier declarations are no longer authoritative. (Including supporting Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, supporting Matthean priority, etc) 37:31 – I was talking to a fallen away Catholic. How do you respond when they say Adam had a first wife named Lilith and Eve was his second wife? 40:20 – I understand if a couple divorces legally they're still married in the eyes of the church. If one wanted to get remarried, they would have to get an annulment from the church, but suppose that marriage produced children. What does the annulment mean for the children of that marriage as far as the church is concerned?? Or another way of putting it: if my parents got annulment from the church, does the church still recognize me as a baptized Catholic? or do I suddenly become a bastard child (for lack of a better term)?? 45:08 – How should we understand Jesus “fulfilling the law”, specifically considering the abandonment of many of the laws of the old covenant? 49:16 – Prior to the fall — Did “Adam and Eve” have Preternatural Gifts if they existed under the Federal Headship Model or the Polygenism Model?  If they did what would have been the morality of Human Beings, with Preternatural Gifts, mating with human like beings without preternatural gifts. …

A proposed solution to the synoptic problem holds that the Gospel of Mark was used as a source by the Gospel of Luke, then both of these were used as sources by the Gospel of Matthew, referred to as the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis. A renowned Bible scholar continues to present his thought provoking arguments in support of a historical Jesus and the texts associated with his life and ministry. Enjoy this Encore Presentation! Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World podcast available at https://amzn.to/3YJpTqZ Books by Jimmy Akin available at https://amzn.to/3shLkD8     THANKS for the many wonderful comments, messages, ratings and reviews. All of them are regularly posted for your reading pleasure on https://patreon.com/markvinet where you can also get exclusive access to Bonus episodes, Ad-Free content, Extra materials, and an eBook Welcome Gift when joining our growing community on Patreon or Donate on PayPal at https://bit.ly/3cx9OOL and receive an eBook GIFT. SUPPORT this series by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3POlrUD (Amazon gives us credit at no extra charge to you). It costs you nothing to shop using this FREE store entry link and by doing so encourages & helps us create more quality content. Thanks! Mark Vinet's HISTORY OF NORTH AMERICA podcast: www.parthenonpodcast.com/history-of-north-america                                                  Mark's TIMELINE video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet      Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels  Twitter: https://twitter.com/HistoricalJesu   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9  YouTube Podcast Playlist: https://www.bit.ly/34tBizu  TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@historyofnorthamerica  Books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM  Linktree: https://linktr.ee/WadeOrganization                                                              Source: When Were the Gospels Written? (The Dates of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) from Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World podcast with Dom Bettinelli. Audio excerpts reproduced under the Fair Use (Fair Dealings) Legal Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, education, scholarship, research and news reporting.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In observance of the Feast of All Saints, we jump back to earlier in Matthew as Jesus is giving his sermon on the mount. Elizabeth Garnsey, John Kennedy, and Rob Schwartz talk about the Beatitudes and what Jesus meant by the word "blessed". Plus, how does Matthew's version differ from Luke's and what needed to be conveyed to the Matthean community.Want to have your question or comment featured on the podcast? Leave a voicemail on our Rev'd Up hotline! Call (203) 442-5002.Learn more about St. Mark's at https://www.stmarksnewcanaan.org

A proposed solution to the synoptic problem holds that the Gospel of Mark was used as a source by the Gospel of Luke, then both of these were used as sources by the Gospel of Matthew, referred to as the Matthean Posteriority hypothesis. A renowned Bible scholar continues to present his thought provoking arguments in support of a historical Jesus and the texts associated with his life and ministry.  Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World podcast available at https://amzn.to/3YJpTqZ Books by Jimmy Akin available at https://amzn.to/3shLkD8     Thanks for the many wonderful comments, messages, ratings and reviews. All of them are regularly posted for your reading pleasure on https://patreon.com/markvinet along with the Completists Honor Roll, Collaborators Lists, and where you can also get exclusive access to Bonus episodes, Ad-Free content, Extra materials, and an eBook Welcome Gift when joining our growing community on Patreon or Donate on PayPal at https://bit.ly/3cx9OOL and receive an eBook GIFT. SUPPORT this channel by enjoying a wide-range of useful & FUN Gadgets at https://twitter.com/GadgetzGuy OR by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM (Amazon gives us credit at no extra charge to you). It costs you nothing to shop using this FREE store entry link and by doing so encourages, supports & helps us to create more quality content for this series. Thanks! Mark Vinet's HISTORY OF NORTH AMERICA podcast: www.parthenonpodcast.com/history-of-north-america                                                Mark's TIMELINE video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet        Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels  Twitter: https://twitter.com/HistoricalJesu   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9  YouTube Podcast Playlist: https://www.bit.ly/34tBizu  TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@historyofnorthamerica  Books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM  Linktree: https://linktr.ee/WadeOrganization                                                    Source: When Were the Gospels Written? (The Dates of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) from Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World podcast with Dom Bettinelli. Audio excerpts reproduced under the Fair Use (Fair Dealings) Legal Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, education, scholarship, research and news reporting.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Did Matthew or Mark come first? David defends Matthean priority. 

This is Easter Sunday. The scripture is the Matthean account of the women arriving at the tomb to be met by an angel and then by the risen Jesus. Having been in “a Good Friday place” for several weeks now from our community's sorrow, and having preached on “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” in a Good Friday service, Carol confessed to having felt lost as late as yesterday. From this text in Matthew, she realized that those closest to Jesus must have felt down and lost, too, from the burial of Jesus through their Sabbath day. Then on the first day of the week those two Mary's went to the tomb, still deep in grief, only to witness an angel opening the tomb and announcing the resurrection. They are convinced and leave to tell the disciples as the angel had instructed them to do, but in a culmination to their experience, the risen Jesus appears to them. We, too, leave this place having experienced the resurrection, so that we, like the two Mary's and the disciples, are sent out to love in the power of resurrection, recalling the words of Jesus, “I am with you always.”

In contrast to our Shrove Tuesday Jazz Mass, which is a celebratory service, on Ash Wednesday we turn our hearts and minds to the introspection and meditation of the Lenten season, using the sign of the cross in ashes on our foreheads as a symbol of that shift. The Rev. Carol Cavin-Dillon gives the homily, “To Show or Not To Show,” initially asking whether when we leave the service we will wipe the ashes off our foreheads or will leave the ashes there for others to see. The scripture for the service, from the Matthean version of the Sermon on the Mount, seems to give us both answers, and so, “It depends.”

For the record, I don't care about Han Solo or whether he shot first in the cantina scene in Star Wars. I care about Matthew. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Mark, too, and Luke, and John. It's just that Mark didn't shoot first. Mark shot second. Like Mark Antony's speech at Caesar's funeral, it started with a line such as, “I've come to bury Matthew, not to praise him!” This scholarship to remove Matthew as the first Gospel writer started in anti-Catholic Protestant universities in Europe, using biased textual criticism that ignored all historical testimony in writing and Sacred Tradition. But why would they do that? Why would anyone do that? Who benefits? Let me beat this topic a bit longer…First and foremost, knocking down Matthew to second or third very clearly elevates the Protestant argument against Peter as the first Pope and apostolic succession. This cannot be understated. If there is one position to attack on the Catholic Church, it's to get the Papacy in check-mate, and when the direct assault of the Protestants didn't work, a long “march through the culture” happened in the universities. Today we can observe the atheists like Bart Ehrman in lockstep with the Marxists. It makes for strange bedfellows. Since the workers of the world did not unite to overthrow capitalism and religion, a long atheist “march through the culture” is happening. (Spoiler alert: at the end these marches, guess who will still be there? Yes, the answer is the Catholic Church. This is not the first rodeo for the Church. There have been large, violent, and lengthy attacks before in the forms of the Arians, Nestorians, Albigensians, Islam, and a hundred others.) As we watch the fragmentation of Protestantism, and the latest ascendency of what is becoming known as wokeness, we can observe a process of atomization unfolding. A scattering is happening. We can read about the annual splintering of the Baptists at their conventions. Even this week as I write this, the United Methodist Church will soon be no longer United but “Wedged” instead. On the other side, the unbelievers form factions that come and go, like the Masons, the humanists, the deconstructionists, the freethinkers, the “Brights” (the hilarious, brief attempt at a religion started by Richard Dawkins, which I was quite enamored with when I was fallen away and thought Dawkins was deep instead of ridiculous). These fads come and go, because none of them are from God. We are in the last days of the Masons because they were always just a reaction and a copycat. The humanists can't get along, or even form a coherent set of ideas, because they worship the human, and that makes for seven billion gods. The woke are already destroying one another, as the head is now eating the tail. One thing that always plays out is the breakdown of unity among unbelievers. It's ugly. It's not beautiful. It's ugly…because it's not from God.The tragedy, however, in doing this teardown of Matthew, is that these well-intentioned Pope-haters (which is considered a virtue in some Protestant circles) managed to undermine all of sacred scripture, not just the parts that affect the Catholic Church. A nice summary of this long tragedy is in a book by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker called The Decline and Fall of Sacred Scripture. The obsession with scholarly insight into scripture did not elevate the word of God, it devalued it and ripped out the supernatural altogether. Yet the supernatural is still in there, despite decades of academic wrestling over.Why does this research undermine the Gospel? Because if Matthew is written after the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem, when the Romans laid waste to all things Jewish, Jesus' prediction about the temple being disassembled becomes really, really weak. If Matthew wrote this after 70 A.D., which all “modern” biased scholarship suggests, then it makes no sense. As Jesus came out of the temple and was going away, his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. Then he asked them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1-2)Now, faithful scholarship believes Matthew was written between 42 and 68 A.D., which makes sense with this statement (and everything else above). However, scholars who lack faith place Matthew as being written after 70 A.D. and only that Matthew drew from “earlier sources,” but the problem is that the suspicion is already branded on the text and when scholars refer to “earlier sources” they are not referring to the Hebrew version of Matthew that tradition speaks about. And here are the suspicions: 1.) That the prediction of the temple destruction was added after the fact to make Jesus look prophetic. 2.) That the pro-Catholic verses about Peter and the Sacraments were added later to shore up the case for Catholic authority. 3.) That all of the Gospel is dubious at best because so much time passed that an eyewitness account is impossible. What I can never fully get my head around is this. The main argument for Mark being first is that…: Mark is shorter. The second reason is that Mark is…: Mark is a weaker writer. Both of these arguments can be turned around and argued against to say that Matthew was first because Matthew is longer and Matthew is a better writer. These arguments for “Mark shot first” are inventions and bear no weight whatsoever on facts, and you can argue it until you are blue in the face without it getting anywhere, and scholars have done just that. But somehow these arguments have great staying power because scholarship has anointed these two ideas with the ink of published papers. Never mind that the journals are biased toward “Mark shot first” to begin with. Never mind that you probably can't get a job teaching Biblical studies if you objected to these arguments (read this fascinating article about 19th century German hiring and firing of those who didn't toe the party line). The following may come as a shock to the modern person who likes to “follow the science” and assumes that science and experts would never lie: scholars and scientists are every bit as prone to simping, scapegoating, and “dry-labbing” facts as are religious and business people, and correcting an error in scholarship or science is like turning a super-tanker around in the ocean; it takes a long time, and a lot of energy, and a lot of convincing, because usually no one wants to admit things are going in the wrong direction. There's too much money, time, and sunk costs to change direction. The Titanic didn't sink because an iceberg hit it. The Titanic sunk because it ran into an iceberg. The problem of pride in the mind and assumed perfection preceded the collision. The iceberg just happened to be the reality that smashed a false idea. In praise of science, it usually will self-correct over time because sooner or later someone calls out the lie. The researcher who produces false results will be outed, even if it takes a century. However, Biblical scholarship is not biology or physics, so there is much more room for bias, just like in sociology or history or literary criticism, and the will of whoever is in power, whether it's a king or department chair, can skew the results dramatically toward the desired outcome through wordsmithing. Even in hiring, the bias for the desired outcome of future research is accomplished, because if an academic researcher would like a job but shows inclinations against the status quo, then their application will be passed over. This is no different than the Church, where an atheist cannot become a priest. But the faith is laid out in full display in the Church, where the preachers and teachers must profess the faith. In academia, this is hidden. Under the guise of “free speech” there is anything but such a thing, and therein lies the problem: the lies. Thus is a bias and motive protected, fenced off, in the walled gardens of academia, and there is no place more fenced off in the modern world than the university. They are the modern Levites, the experts who hand down the truth. As we try to downplay Moses and religious ways, our modern academic experts act more like Moses on Sinai than Moses himself, even wearing lab coats in their TV interviews, or being interviewed in rooms with walls bearing diplomas for the lay people, or giving TED talks from on high to the plebes watching at home on YouTube. So, back to the absurd argument of “It's shorter.” If I want to argue that “Mark shot first” because “it's shorter,” if I stare long and hard enough at Mark, I will find a case and enough evidence for the outcome I'm seeking. This is the beauty of textual criticism - it's an interpretive dance based solely on internal evidence, and therefore a fantasy. On the flip side, if I want to argue that Matthew is first because “it's longer,” I can do that, too. After all, you can spin a text into whatever you like, if you just use internal evidence of the text itself.The difference, however, is that a scholar most likely cannot publish the findings for an argument that “Matthew is longer, therefore first.” In secular academics, to get a job teaching such things, or to get accepted in a graduate program, is unlikely. This is the problem with modern academia; it is as rigid as the Pharisees in what you are allowed to say or believe. The book 1984 was written in an era of totalitarian governments, but today it applies very well to American universities and public schools, and this is exactly why so many teachers are leaving the profession. No one enjoys living a lie. As a former English major, I will say this pointing at myself: This spin problem is why you never want English majors being the navigators for your nation. They can spin gold into straw very easily, but they cannot spin straw into gold. They can only spin. They spin and toil and undo things, but by and large they do not create anything. A career is made of unpacking and teasing out meaning, calling out prejudices, pointing out oppression - but never producing or making anything. Lit-crit and Biblical-crit at the modern university is full of morality, guilt, and finger-pointing, to the point that three modern academics were able to publish several hoax papers on grievance studies that were accepted mainly because of their use on ridiculous postmodern jargon. “The trio set out with the intent to expose problems in what they called ‘grievance studies', referring to academic areas where they claim ‘a culture has developed in which only certain conclusions are allowed… and put social grievances ahead of objective truth'.”Now, with the humanities in free-fall, the jig is up on modern scholarship, since it's reaching the tipping point, the last phase, where the head becomes too heavy for the body to carry it any longer. Now we reach the point in a society where the workers of the world unite, but not the way that intellectuals like Marx think. The workers unite because they are tired of pulling the cart and being told they are the evil ones. So for the most part, I try not to worry about this long attack on Matthew. Jesus warned us not to worry. One thing is for sure: even if Matthew hadn't written at all, and we were still simply rolling by oral tradition, the message of Christ would still be growing, because it is from God, and nothing on this earth, nothing in this world, can halt what is from God. Jesus warned us about spinning and toiling, using clothing as an example, and clothing is even a metaphor in the Garden to hide our nakedness. Our reputations and opinions are kind of like clothing, where we fashion these elaborate fig leaves to cover ourselves. Jesus warns us to knock it off, and quit worrying: “Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin.” He warns us about men of little faith: “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.”So I should really just stop bothering about the fact that “Matthew shot first,” because I know that tradition tells us his Gospel was first, and having faith means trusting in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church. I know that. And yet, sometimes I let it bother me, because the real reason behind all of this is not a search for the truth, but the search for an outcome. The obvious aim of this kind of scholarship from the start has been to undermine the Church, and it remains so to this day. Whether it comes from the cynicism of unbelievers or the broadsides of Protestants, the desired outcome is the capitulation of the bishop of Rome, a.k.a. the Pope, who is on the chair of Peter, on the rock of the Church that Christ founded. And clearly scholars will not destroy the church, because Jesus promised that the “gates of hell will not prevail against” his Church. So they can certainly try to undermine it, but ultimately will fail, and they are failing now. It will play out exactly as every other attempt to destroy the Church, in that it will be messy, but the Church will remain when the dust settles, just as it has outlasted every other heresy and empire. This campaign has produced thousands of papers and articles on the Synoptic Problem, which was not a problem at all until modern scholarship made it into one, in the same universities that brought us the sad philosophy and ideas that conjured 20th century Germany, China, and the Soviet Union, and all of the horrors. These things are not unrelated. The stoking of the “will-to-power” didn't just happen in political nationalism and social Darwinism and Marxist revolutions. It happened most definitely in Biblical scholarship as well. Now, they meant it for bad, but as always, God will in the end, use it for good. This is how God deals with folks like Julius Wellhausen and Gottlieb Storr. He will do so with modern doubters too, like Bart Ehrman and his atheist disciples. The funny thing about scholarship's search for “truth” that wants to debunk Christianity is that they often end up organizing and collating information better so that new insights to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition can be found. In other words, the unbelievers and anti-Catholics help faithful writers write better books on the truth of Christ. The anti-Catholics are like Joseph's eleven brothers in Genesis that throw him down the well and sell him into slavery, only to find out later that Joseph ended up thriving while they starved. In short, there was great incentive to crush Catholicism in Lutheran Germany from the time old Gottlieb Storr first whispered the idea of “Mark shot first” in 1786. For any philosophy aficionados, this connection will be interesting: one of Gottlieb Storr's students was none other than Hegel, who was the muse of Karl Marx. You have to marvel at it really, how these connections lead down the path of unbelief. The mess we are in today is the product of a lot of cross-pollination and rebellion (I wanted to say inbreeding but that would be uncharitable). What's interesting to me is these Hatfields and McCoys are actually all in the same family, as Protestant Storr begat unbelieving Hegel, and Hegel begat atheist Marx, and Marx begat Nietzsche, and Nietzsche begat Sartre, and Sartre begat Derrida, and Derrida begat Foucault, and Foucault begat the many-headed monster of wokeism. These are the names. This is how we've come to live in the book of Judges again in 2023 because “in those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes.” (Judges 21:25) The path of denying that sin exists starts small, but balloons into the denial of God. In hindsight, this all should have been as predictable as a stock market bubble, but the prophets of doom, those annoying gnats, are never heard until afterward.When Bismarck and company were consolidating power in Germany, this little snowball of Biblical criticism rolled, and rolled, and rolled, and the re-shaping of the Bible into a secular book has been so successful that when I attended a Catholic University for a year (from which I want my money back), I learned about “Marcan Priority,” which is a fancy way of saying that “Mark shot first.” I was also told that “We don't know who wrote the Gospels.” Both of these statements are false. If only that were the worst of it. The “Mark shot first” theory is not only taught in Catholic colleges. No, no, no. “Mark shot first” is taught in the American bishops' official Bible footnotes, in the “New American Bible,” the NAB. The Bible translation itself is fine. It's the footnotes that destroy faith. I am not alone in this feeling. Many others, like Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn to name just two of them, do not like the footnotes, or even the translation very much. You cannot read a page of Matthew in the New American Bible without the writer of the footnotes mentioning the hypothetical “Q” source (a document that doesn't exist and was probably Matthew in Aramaic or Hebrew if it did exist). Further, the footnote author mentions Marcan priority, and Mark as the source. So the footnotes of the New American Bible disagree with 1800 years of Tradition. How interesting. Someday I hope to learn who the author was of these footnotes. The root problem here is a lack of a supernatural view of the Bible, of which I may do a whole additional series on, because it's so important, but I can't dive deeply on it here without getting way off track, as I tend to do. This Bible, this New American Bible, with these heretical and faithless footnotes, is given to Confirmation students across America. It is everywhere. They are given out like a medal, a right of passage at Confirmation. I've discarded mine. So should you. Get a Word on Fire Bible or Ignatius Study Bible instead, or if you don't want a Catholic study Bible, get an ESV Study Bible that has faithful footnotes. I guess I can breathe a sigh of relief here because most Catholics don't actually read the Bible. (Score one for the Protestants. See - I don't always pick on the protestors. Some of the Protestant study Bibles have better footnotes, far more faithful ones than the New American Bible). Worst of all, the USCCB, the United States Catholic Bishops' website, uses these same footnotes. I weep. Here I weep. This is a travesty that must be uprooted and ripped out of the Church. I wrote a letter to the USCCB requesting that the footnotes be taken down, or better, printed off and used for kindling. (“But that's book burning, you Nazi!”) Fine, let's just delete them and use the Ignatius Study Bible footnotes instead. Now there is a Catholic study Bible that is faithful to the Scripture and the Tradition. Again, the New American Bible is fine, but the footnotes must have been written by my liberal arts professors who hadn't been to Mass in a long time - probably ever since they received their New American Bible with the footnotes about Marcan priority! Matthew shot first. As I've mentioned before, in the Bible, in the Commandments, and in the story of Creation, order matters, and the order of which the four evangelists wrote also matters greatly. The ordering of them in the form of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John doesn't just roll off the tongue. It's also the order in which they came to be on paper. And even if Matthew was translated from Hebrew into Greek, he was first, has always been first, and the early Church had no reason to pretend this was the case, unlike the scholars who tried to upend history by twisting words. One thing that should be an immediate head scratcher for you is this: if Christianity started in Jerusalem, where Christ was crucified, effectively on Pentecost, and most of the initial arguments were with Jews and Christ's followers, then why would Mark, written in Greek, be the first? Warning: if you attend a university, almost any university, you will never hear these arguments. This is all hidden from you, as the modern Biblical scholars have buried these. In 1995, I was taught only Marcan Priority…at a Catholic college, of all places. The great thing about truth, however, is that it cannot be buried forever. My hope is that someday, just as the Dead Sea Scrolls were found by some kids throwing rocks in caves, that another jar will turn up in Israel, and inside it will be Aramaic Matthew, and all of this false scholarship, and I mean all of it, will turn to dust. Matthew shot first.The following is from a biblical site where people argue about these things, copied in full. (From https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com). What are the arguments in favor of Matthean Priority?External Evidence* Matthew is almost unanimously testified as the oldest gospel by the church fathers. Clement of Alexandria even supported both Matthew and Luke as before Mark. This is significant because Mark is said to have founded the Coptic branch of Christianity in Alexandria, Egypt. If any place were to argue for Markan priority, Egypt would be the most likely. A sampling of the church fathers' testimony follows:* Papias “Matthew wrote in Hebrew and others translated.” (HE 3.39.16)* Origen said the first gospel was written by Matthew in Hebrew. (HE 6.25.4)* Irenaeus (grandson in the faith of John by Polycarp of Smyrna) said the first gospel was written written by Matthew in land of Hebrews in their own language. (Against Heresies. 3.1.1)* Eusebius — Matthew had first preached to Hebrews and wrote in their own language (HE 3.24.6)* Jerome “Matthew was the first to compose in Hebrew and his text is still available in [library near Bethlehem].” He even challenged his critics to go see it if they doubted. (Lives of Illustrious Men ch. 3)As the church rose out of the mission to the gentiles, it is interesting that the church fathers supported the Judaic gospel of Matthew instead of Mark. Also consider that they testify that Mark was the companion of the Apostle Peter in Rome which became one of the five sees of the early church (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, Egypt). Unless the tradition of Matthean priority were very early, it is unlikely that they would all arrive at it independently. In fact, the slight differences in their testimonies provide evidence that they came from different sources.* Even though one of the main arguments for Markan priority is that Mark is shorter and "later authors would be more likely to expand than contract," such is not always the case (see, for example, the Reader's Digest Condensed Library). Summarizing a longer work is well known and has been for a long time. There are even ancient works which name their sources and state, "this work will be a shorter, more understandable account of the events than X."* The Didache clearly relies on Matthew. While the date of this document is debated between AD 50 and AD 150, the earlier it is, the earlier Matthew has to be.* When you examine second-century Christian writings, Matthew is quoted far more frequently than Mark. So is Luke. If Mark enjoyed a period when it was the only written gospel, it seems that it should have been more popular. Likewise, Matthew's Gospel enjoys a more central place in the second century liturgy than any other gospel or even Paul's epistles. (see, for example, Massaux's extensive treatment of the subject here)Internal EvidenceI am separating textual evidence from internal evidence. The difference is that internal evidence will be themes or concepts while textual evidence deals with specific words and phrases.* The fall of Jerusalem is completely missing from Matthew. This event rocked the Jewish world. Matthew, who so often points out when a prophecy is fulfilled, does not add an editorial comment to Jesus' prophecy that Jerusalem would be overthrown. Not a single "and this prophecy was fulfilled" about the fall.Some have pointed to Matthew 22:7 as referring to the fall of Jerusalem as an event happening in the past. In fact, this verse is almost universally accepted as such. However, sending in troops and burning a city with fire were quite common ways of dealing with troublesome cities in the past. In fact, it is so common in Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Rabbinic writings that its occurrence here should not be thought to refer to a single event.Moreover, for an after-the-fact prophecy, Matt 22:7 is very inexact. While the walls of Jerusalem fell, it was the temple that burned. In fact, post event "prophecies" do make this distinction.We have overthrown the wall of Zion and we have burnt the place of the mighty God (II Baruch 7.1). [I.e. the temple. For this sense, cf. II Mace. 5.17-20; John 11.48; Acts6.14; 21.28; etc.]They delivered ... to the enemy the overthrown wall, and plundered the house, and burnt the temple (II Baruch 80.3).And a Roman leader shall come to Syria, who shall burn down Solyma's [Jerusalem's] temple with fire, and therewith slay many men, and shall waste the great land of the Jews with its broad way (Sibylline Oracles 4.125-7).It seems to me that if this were being written post AD 70, then the prophecy would have been altered to distinguish the fates of the city and temple. Christians did come to see the burning of the Temple as God's judgment on the Jewish leadership, but the events do not correspond closely enough to require Christ's parable to be a reference to it or the wording to be an after the fact description. A final note on Matthew and the city can be found in Matthew 27:8 ("For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day."). Matthew seems to view the city as still intact when he writes that.Likewise, the cryptic statement in Matt 24, "let the reader understand" need not mean the "this prophecy has been fulfilled." Whenever Matthew wants to say that a prophecy has been fulfilled, he says so (for example, Matt 1:22; 2:15; 2:23; 3:15; 4:14; etc).I understand Matthew 24 to be referring to the parousia. Matthew states that the distress of those days will be followed immediately by the coming of the Son of Man (24:29). This did not happen in AD 70. If Matthew is trying to portray Jesus as an unmatched prophet, he failed by including material that did not happen.* While Matthew contains a high Christology, this by no means means it has to be written after Mark who does not present such a high theology. (Easily explained if Mark's Gospel is meant for an audience who is new in the faith.) Paul's letters contain a high Christology, and most scholars date Paul (died ~64) before Mark (who they place ~70). Moreover, Paul's letters show that Christian traditions even earlier than his had a high Christology.* The same can be said for Matthew's high liturgy. In fact, one of the verses that is brought out to show Matthew came late in the first century or beyond is Matthew 18:17 based on the word "church." However, this ignores that the Greek word used there, ecclesia, enjoyed wide usage in the Septuagint to translate qahal, "sacred assembly," and was used by diaspora Jews.Textual Evidence* There are a significant number of places in Matthew where the parallel account in Mark makes more sense to have been edited down than for Matthew to expand. It is possible to read Mark with the hypothesis that it came from Matthew and run into no redactional problems that challenge said hypothesis. However, reading Matthew as a redaction of Mark does cause such problems.* There are places where Mark uses a certain word but Matthew does not, even though he used that word in other places (for example "pherein"). This makes more sense with Mark editing Matthew than of Matthew copying Mark.* There are places where Matthew has phrases he likes and uses them consistently. Mark has parallels of most of these accounts and is very free in his translations of the phrases. It makes more sense for Mark to be free styling from Matthew than it does for Matthew to be forcing the phrase into his wording whenever he sees it in Mark. One of these phrases is opias de genomenes, found first in Mt 8:16 and Mk 1:32. Markan priority has to conclude that Matthew copied the form exactly as Mark had it the first time, then always and consistently used the same grammar whenever he found a similar phrase in Mark and introducing it himself in Mt 20:8 which has no parallel in Mark.* There are places where Mark combines details from both Matthew and Luke. An example of these duplicate expressions can be seen in Mark 1:32 compared to Mt 8:16 and Luk 4:40.Mk 1:32 When evening came, after the sun had set, they began bringing to Him all who were ill and those who were demon-possessed.Mt 8:16 When evening came, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed; and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were ill.Lk 4:40 While the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and laying His hands on each one of them, He was healing them.In these parallels, Mark combines the introductory phrases from both Matthew and Luke. In this case, Markan priority would require that Luke know of both Matthew and Mark and consciously choose to use the exact phrase that Matthew does not. However, if Matthew writes first and Luke second, there is no such problem.* Matthew leaves semitisms in place where Mark smoothens them. This includes wording and patterns that Mark breaks. Yes, Mark has eight semitic words, but Matthew has many more semitisms (so does Luke, a plethora of semitisms). Many of Mark's semitisms seem to be added for drama while Matthew's flow naturally.Adding to the semitisms are 12 times where Matthew (and Luke) uses the participle of a verb while Mark uses the past tense. Using a participle for the second verb in a set (and he answered, saying) is well-known when coming from a semitic language (all over the Septuagint) but is not used in normal Greek. Mark also uses these participles but not as often. It would be more likely to edit them out than to edit them back in.Many more examples exist where Matthew and Luke agree with one another in wording and Mark is different.* Matthew and Luke both record 8 healing miracles. Mark has 10. The two left out of both Matthew and Luke are the saliva miracles (Mark 7:32-35 and 8:24). Did they both decide to skip the same miracles independently or did Mark add them from another source?More details can be found here and here. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.whydidpetersink.com

How to understand the Christian concept of God versus the pagan gods. Pope Benedict XVI (emeritus) wrote "Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives." In it he discusses the difference between mythic conceptions of divine birth, like the rape of Europa by Zeus and the Matthean and Lukan accounts of the virgin birth. Comparing the two, he focuses on how differently the divine is understood. He writes, "The difference between the concepts involved is so profound that one really cannot speak of true parallels. In the Gospel accounts, the oneness of the one God and the infinite distance between God and creature is fully preserved. There is no mixture, no demi-god. It is God's creative word alone that brings about something new. Jesus, born of Mary, is fully man and fully God, without confusion and without. " Pope Benedict XVI. Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives . The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. We will explore this and more on Oro Valley Catholic for the Fourth Sunday of Advent. Readings: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/121822.cfm Music by the St. Mark Choir pursuant to One License for podcasting, # A-726294

Jesus said we're to pray, “forgive us our debts” (Matthew 6:12-KJV) or the Matthean version: “and forgive us our trespasses.” And then in verse 14, He reiterates the importance of forgiveness… “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”But are we not already forgiven?Why the Lord's Prayer is a collective prayerA quick review of Episodes 15, 16 and 17 is definitely in order here - The Lies We Believe About Sin, Forgiveness & SanctificationHow sin is punishedWhat happens spiritually and physically when we don't forgiveGrab a copy of Fran's book, Surviving Spiritual AbuseGet more help from Trish and Guests! IW Unleashed: The new community membership for mission minded entrepreneurial women. Get ready to live a life unleashed! Embracing Rest: Encounter the place of Resting in Jesus - the REAL Truth of how to experience joy, peace, and healing!

Bible Study: (1:02) RV 11:19A; 12:1-6A, 10AB Father discusses the connection between today's feast and Revelation 1 COR 15:20-27 Do we have universal salvation?  LK 1:39-56 Mary offers her prayer of thanksgiving  Letters: (15:06) Fr. Mike writes in to Fr. Simon about the Bible in a Year program  A listener writes in about becoming an oblate  Story about inviting a Mormon in for food Is the Pope updating the teaching on contraception?  Listener asks about the Cross being the Kingdom What is the best way to read the Bible?  A caller asks about the Matthean exception for marriage Do I have to go to Mass if I'm going on a trip in a remote area?   Word of the Day: Assumption (32:47) Callers  (39:11) - Could you explain the 28 Holy Stairs Devotion?  (41:17) - Could I go to a wedding of a non-practicing Catholic in a secular setting? (46:13) - I just love Fr. Simon and appreciate him and I'm a contributor 

Jesus of Nazareth is the great Subject of our preaching and the Hero of our Sermons, but in what ways should Jesus be a role model in our preaching style and sermon construction? In this engaging conversation with Matthean scholar Dr Jonathan Pennington, Mike Neglia finds out in what ways the authoritative yet mysterious preaching of the Messiah is exemplary for contemporary expositors (and a few ways that He is NOT supposed to be our role-model). Dr Pennington also speaks about the Beatitudes, human flourishing and ways to structure a sermon series the encompasses the entire Sermon on the Mount (and a little bit about heavy metal!) Jonathan T. Pennington is currently Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Southern Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky (USA). He has also regularly served as a visiting professor at Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando), Southeastern Seminary, The Village Church Institute (Dallas), and The Institute of Biblical Studies in Orlando, FL as well as Morling College (Melbourne, Australia).He is also the Spiritual Formation Pastor at Sojourn East and regularly speaks and teaches in churches all over the country.He earned a B.A. in History as well as a Teaching Certificate from Northern Illinois University. He received the Master of Divinity degree from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Chicago), where he also taught Greek for two years as a NT Fellow. During his time at TEDS he also served for five years as the Associate Pastor at the Evangelical Free Church of Mt. Morris in northern Illinois.He holds the PhD in New Testament Studies from the University of St. Andrews, Scotland (in St. Mary's College), where he wrote a thesis entitled “Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew” under the supervision of Professors Richard Bauckham and Philip Esler. He attended St. Andrews as a Rotary International Ambassadorial Scholar and while there he also served as a lecturer in Greek. Dr. Pennington is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, the Evangelical Theological Society, the Tyndale Fellowship (Cambridge), the Institute for Biblical Research, and the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. He has published a wide variety of books, articles, and Greek and Hebrew language tools. (For fuller information see the Publications pages.) He is the also the host and co-producer of the YouTube show Cars, Coffee, Theology. If you want to support Dr. Pennington's teaching and preaching ministry you can do so here -- https://www.humanflourishingministries.com/donate Resources Mentioned: 11 Part Sermon on the Mount Devotional lockdown series : https://www.jonathanpennington.com/preaching-and-speaking-resourcces Jesus the Great Philosopher: http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/jesus-the-great-philosopher/403660 Small Preaching https://www.smallpreaching.com/ The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing: http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/the-sermon-on-the-mount-and-human-flourishing/349604 Recommended Episodes Dr Pennington's earlier episode on Expositors Collective: https://www.expositorscollective.com/podcast/2021/8/10/the-first-and-last-minute-of-your-sermon-jonathan-pennington Daniel Fusco : https://www.expositorscollective.com/podcast/2021/8/24/daniel-fusco-tilling-the-soil Sam Allberry: https://www.expositorscollective.com/podcast/2021/9/21/embodied-preaching-sam-allberry The Expositors Collective is a growing network of pastors, leaders, and laypeople which exists to equip, encourage, and mentor the next generation of Christ-centered preachers. We provide resources through our weekly podcast, our two-day intentional training seminars, and interactive webinars.Our next in-person Training Weekend for men and women of all ages will be in Boise, Idaho on October 14-15, 2022 at Calvary Boise. In this interactive seminar, attendees will meet in groups and build ongoing relationships.Join our private Facebook group to continue the conversation: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ExpositorsCollectiveThe Expositors Collective podcast is part of the GoodLion podcast network, for more thought provoking Christian podcasts visit https://goodlion.io

GOSPEL POWER l JULY 5, 2022 - TUESDAY 14th Week in Ordinary Time Gospel: Mt 9:32-38 32A demoniac who was mute was brought to Jesus. 33And when the demon had been cast out, the one who had been mute spoke; and the crowds were amazed and said, “Never has anything like this been seen in Israel.” 34But the Pharisees said, “By the ruler of the demons he casts out the demons.” 35Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every sickness. 36When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. 37Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; 38therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.” The reaction of the Pharisees to Jesus' successful exorcism is similar to what we call today “bullying.” They assert their own superiority through verbal abuse aimed at discrediting Jesus in the eyes of the crowds who witnessed the powerful deed. In this Matthean version of the episode, Jesus demonstrates that the most effective way to silence such bullies is to ignore them. Secure in his identity and committed to his mission, Jesus refuses to be lured into a petty quarrel that can distract him from his more important concerns. Thus, he walks away without a word to continue his mission. He has been sent into the world to embody God's compassion for his people, and nothing could deter him from doing that. Lord Jesus, help us to have that single-hearted focus on the greater things of God, and thus shun pettiness. Amen.

Episode 827 (25:49) In this episode: The Sermon on the Plain; word Blessed vs. Happy; Lukan version vs. Matthean version; Reflection on the Beatitudes Related Web Sites:  My Website Podcast Page All Previous Episodes

We modern folk like to think we invented confusion, but human beings have always been easily confused. We hear and see whatever we want, ignoring everything only to marvel at a phantom we mistake for our reflection. In Matthew 27, this behavior exposes the characters' folly in the story. The bystanders are listening for something other than the content of what is preached from the cross. Like us, they find what they are listening for and miss everything. You might say it's a Matthean critique of pre-modern post-modernism. Or maybe they're just confused. Richard and Fr. Marc discuss Matthew 27:47-50. Episode 416 Matthew 27:47-50; Music:Dirt Rhodes by Kevin MacLeodLink: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3650-dirt-rhodesLicense: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

When English speakers co-opt the Matthean expression, “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak,” they inevitably de-scripturalize them. They twist the words of Jesus as though they refer to an inner psychological struggle or matter of conscience: “I want to do the right thing, but my nature fights against it.” After 400 episodes of the Bible as Literature podcast, do you still need us to spell it out for you? On what basis do you assume that the spirit which opposes Peter's flesh has anything to do with Peter, let alone your make-believe inner struggle? Richard and Fr. Marc discuss Matthew 26:40-42. This week's episode is presented in loving memory of Saleh Canavati. Episode 400 Matthew 26:40-42; Music:Vision of Persistence by Kevin MacLeodLink: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/4592-vision-of-persistenceLicense: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

On this episode, Pastor Warr rides solo as he embodies the Crazy Charlie meme to explain his research and theories regarding Markan priority while constantly mispronouncing both Markan and Matthean priority theory. Yay!

No parable is more widely abused than the Parable of the Talents. On the heels of a series of Matthean stories that warn of destruction and judgment, the Master assigns a duty to each of his slaves in anticipation, yet again, of the coming judgment. He does not want their money. He has no interest in their stewardship plans or building programs. Nowhere is their talk of parish growth or volunteer sign-up sheets. Lastly, and most importantly, when Matthew uses the word “talents,” he is not talking about our special, unique gifts from God. He is talking about the content of St. Paul's teaching. Richard and Fr. Marc discuss Matthew 25:14-15.Episode 384 Matthew 25:14-15; Music:As I Figure by Kevin MacLeodLink: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3383-as-i-figureLicense: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

For those who impose a triumphalist or sectarian premise on the Bible, it is impossible to hear the Parable of the Ten Virgins. Even if they accept Matthew’s warning that the church will be judged—even if they understand that the virgins represent churches—they immediately assume that their church is numbered among the prudent. But the very fact of a Matthean reckoning implies that the jury is still out for all of us. So, the question is, is the body of our church prepared for the arrival of the Bridegroom? Since all ten virgins (representing all the churches of the earth) were found sleeping at the wheel, how did some manage to survive? What should your church be doing to scrape by on that day, despite itself? Richard and Fr. Marc discuss Matthew 25:5-9.Episode 382 Matthew 25:5-9; Music:Pulse by Kevin MacLeodLink: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/4250-pulseLicense: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

We continue in Gospel Discipleship. This week the Gospel of Matthew and those whom is resonates with.

New season, new photo, new song, new sound quality! Doesn't get much better than that! Thank you, Lord Jesus! In this season, we are going to get deep down and dirty with the Sermon on the Mount, one of the most known and controversial speeches in all of history. In this episode, we get contextual and also delve into Luke's version of the Sermon in order to help us learn what to expect in the sessions ahead. Check it out, subscribe, review, and support! Best love to you all. :) Intro Song: Rise Artist: Skillet Album: Rise Copyright 2013 --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/20minutepods/support

We end our series on the Sermon on the Mount with the Matthean passage that ends the sermon in chapter 7. It is the familiar story of two houses, one built on sand and the other on rock. It is easy to understand the difference, but what does it mean for Jesus to caution us to build our house on rock? And how, in our current situation of needing to keep our distance from others during the COVID-19 threat, do we hear the words and act on them?

We end our series on the Sermon on the Mount with the Matthean passage that ends the sermon in chapter 7. It is the familiar story of two houses, one built on sand and the other on rock. It is easy to understand the difference, but what does it mean for Jesus to caution us to build our house on rock? And how, in our current situation of needing to keep our distance from others during the COVID-19 threat, do we hear the words and act on them?

  If you've grown up in church - and maybe even if you haven't - you've probably heard of the conversion of Paul the apostle. Initially, as the story goes, Saul was an enemy of Christians and had them arrested. He was even at the murder/martyrdom of the deacon Stephen, and was apparently the government official there that signed off on his impromptu (and likely illegal) execution. So far, so good - all accurate. Then, later on the Damascus Road, as Acts 9 tells it, Saul meets Jesus, and becomes a Christian. For the rest of his life after meeting Jesus, Saul is now known as Paul because Jesus has not only changed his heart, but changed his name! Great story, bro, but... is that what really happened? Actually, it isn't. But - before we discuss Saul/Paul and biblical names, let's read Acts 9 together! Fantastic testimony! Saul is such a notorious enemy of Christians that when God directly tells the prophet Ananias to go pray for him, Ananias has the temerity (or perhaps, the foolishness) to try and tell God that He was mistaken about sending Ananias to go and pray healing for Saul. God convinces Him that He's right, and Ananias is wrong - duh - and then Saul is healed and delivered. And then, Ananias gives him his new name - right? Actually, no. Saul is still Saul. In fact, in Acts 9:19-20, we see that Saul has become an evangelistic dynamo: "Saul was with the disciples in Damascus for some time. 20 Immediately he began proclaiming Jesus in the synagogues: “He is the Son of God.” But...his name is still Saul! Later, Saul goes to Jerusalem to try and join the church there, but they are still afraid of him, so he decides to change his name to something more Jewish sounding, right? Actually, no - he remains Saul...and Saul is a Hebrew name! Then we take a Saul break for a couple of chapters to let Peter eat some goats and pigs and such. At the end of chapter 11, the focus turns back to Saul, who has been sort of exiled to his hometown of Tarsus partially because Christians are afraid of him, but mostly because people that aren't Christians are after him. But - praise God! - good old Barnabas, the son of encouragement, comes along, and takes Saul (that's still his name) to the church in Antioch, which is a Greek/Gentile city that would be in modern day Turkey. At Antioch, Saul becomes a valued member of the church AND IS STILL CALLED SAUL. Finally, we get to Acts 13. The Gentile church at Antioch is flourishing, and filled with seasoned prophets and teachers from many different nations, including at least two Africans: Lucius of Cyrene and a guy named Simeon the Black (which is a pretty cool name, if you ask me). The Holy Spirit sets apart two of those prophet/teachers for an evangelism mission, and calls them out by name: Barnabas and SAUL. Yes, God Himself calls him Saul years after His conversion. And then we get to the changeover - blink and you miss it! 9 But Saul—also called Paul—filled with the Holy Spirit Acts 13:9 And after that its Paul, the whole Paul and nothing but the Paul. Following that verse, the only time we hear the name "Saul" in the Bible is when Paul is recounting His testimony on the Damascus road. In every other instance, he is simply called 'Paul.' So - our big question: Why did Saul become Paul? And the answer is - HE DIDN'T! Saul is both a Roman citizen and a Hebrew citizen, and as such, he would have two names - a very common practice in the first century. I have a good friend with Mexican origins who is called Johnny by most people here in Salinas, California, but his real name is Juan. Something very similar is happening here with Saul/Paul. (Read more about dual names here) Some dual names came about because a person had an encounter with God, and God changes their name. Abram becomes Abraham, and Jacob the deceiver becomes Israel the overcomer. But in Saul's case - Saul was his Hebrew name, and Paul his Greek/Gentile name, and that is what he went by once God called him to take the good news of Jesus to the Gentiles. I have no doubt that if one of Paul's old Hebrew friends had seen him, that he would have hailed him as 'Saul.' and Paul/Saul would have answered without batting an eye. One last little rabbit trail about names. Let's say that you and I encounter a certain dashing British fellow (or lady, as is the case at the moment) who is a Doctor, but not the medical kind. And this Doctor has a an interesting blue police box that is larger on the inside than on the outside and - HOLY COW! it can go back in time. If our Doctor friend asks me where to go - I'd immediately ask to go back to first century Jerusalem - I want to see Jesus! Here's the sort of interesting thing. If I could speak Aramaic - which was the dominant Jewish spoken language at the time - I would have a very hard time finding Jesus, no matter how many people I asked. They would probably look at me like I was crazy, and tell me they had never heard of a 'Jesus!' What if I asked for Saul, or Paul or Luke, or Matthew, or Peter? I'd get the same response! Why - because those people are myths that only appear in the Bible? NO!! Because Jesus wasn't called Jesus when He was here, and neither was Saul/Paul called Saul/Paul, or Luke called Luke or Matthew called Matthew or Peter called Peter! Confused yet? Well - don't be. Those names are ENGLISH - and English was not a language in the first century A.D. Saul's name would be pronounced more like "Shaul." (with an SH!) His Greek name would have been Paulos. How about Peter - you mean Petros (Greek) or Shimon Ben Yonah (Hebrew) or Keephah - the apparent Aramaic transliteration of the word 'stone.') Luke would be Loukas, and Matthew would be Levi or Matthean. What about Jesus? Well, most likely, he would have been Yehoshua Ben Yosef, which was later shortened to Yeshua Ben Yosef. Both are shortened forms of Joshua, son of Joseph, and the Hebrew name means "YHVH is salvation." Jesus name in Greek is apparently a transliteration of the Hebrew, and is " Iesous" which is pronounced sort of like Ee-ay-soos. Our English word 'Jesus' comes from that via a complicated bit of etymology that would be somewhat boring to non word-geeks. Here's a bit of a stunner if you haven't realized it yet: the name 'Jesus' and the name 'Joshua' are the same names in terms of meaning and origin. Joshua is an anglicized version of Yeshua and Jesus is an anglicized version of the Greek Iesous. (note: anglicized means " make English in form or character. ") We will talk at length about the name Jesus/Iesous at some point in an upcoming pod, but for now it is good to simply remember that Jesus/Peter/Paul/Luke/Mark, etc. are Anglicized versions of Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic names.

  If you've grown up in church - and maybe even if you haven't - you've probably heard of the conversion of Paul the apostle. Initially, as the story goes, Saul was an enemy of Christians and had them arrested. He was even at the murder/martyrdom of the deacon Stephen, and was apparently the government official there that signed off on his impromptu (and likely illegal) execution. So far, so good - all accurate. Then, later on the Damascus Road, as Acts 9 tells it, Saul meets Jesus, and becomes a Christian. For the rest of his life after meeting Jesus, Saul is now known as Paul because Jesus has not only changed his heart, but changed his name! Great story, bro, but... is that what really happened? Actually, it isn't. But - before we discuss Saul/Paul and biblical names, let's read Acts 9 together! Fantastic testimony! Saul is such a notorious enemy of Christians that when God directly tells the prophet Ananias to go pray for him, Ananias has the temerity (or perhaps, the foolishness) to try and tell God that He was mistaken about sending Ananias to go and pray healing for Saul. God convinces Him that He's right, and Ananias is wrong - duh - and then Saul is healed and delivered. And then, Ananias gives him his new name - right? Actually, no. Saul is still Saul. In fact, in Acts 9:19-20, we see that Saul has become an evangelistic dynamo: "Saul was with the disciples in Damascus for some time. 20 Immediately he began proclaiming Jesus in the synagogues: “He is the Son of God.” But...his name is still Saul! Later, Saul goes to Jerusalem to try and join the church there, but they are still afraid of him, so he decides to change his name to something more Jewish sounding, right? Actually, no - he remains Saul...and Saul is a Hebrew name! Then we take a Saul break for a couple of chapters to let Peter eat some goats and pigs and such. At the end of chapter 11, the focus turns back to Saul, who has been sort of exiled to his hometown of Tarsus partially because Christians are afraid of him, but mostly because people that aren't Christians are after him. But - praise God! - good old Barnabas, the son of encouragement, comes along, and takes Saul (that's still his name) to the church in Antioch, which is a Greek/Gentile city that would be in modern day Turkey. At Antioch, Saul becomes a valued member of the church AND IS STILL CALLED SAUL. Finally, we get to Acts 13. The Gentile church at Antioch is flourishing, and filled with seasoned prophets and teachers from many different nations, including at least two Africans: Lucius of Cyrene and a guy named Simeon the Black (which is a pretty cool name, if you ask me). The Holy Spirit sets apart two of those prophet/teachers for an evangelism mission, and calls them out by name: Barnabas and SAUL. Yes, God Himself calls him Saul years after His conversion. And then we get to the changeover - blink and you miss it! 9 But Saul—also called Paul—filled with the Holy Spirit Acts 13:9 And after that its Paul, the whole Paul and nothing but the Paul. Following that verse, the only time we hear the name "Saul" in the Bible is when Paul is recounting His testimony on the Damascus road. In every other instance, he is simply called 'Paul.' So - our big question: Why did Saul become Paul? And the answer is - HE DIDN'T! Saul is both a Roman citizen and a Hebrew citizen, and as such, he would have two names - a very common practice in the first century. I have a good friend with Mexican origins who is called Johnny by most people here in Salinas, California, but his real name is Juan. Something very similar is happening here with Saul/Paul. (Read more about dual names here) Some dual names came about because a person had an encounter with God, and God changes their name. Abram becomes Abraham, and Jacob the deceiver becomes Israel the overcomer. But in Saul's case - Saul was his Hebrew name, and Paul his Greek/Gentile name, and that is what he went by once God called him to take the good news of Jesus to the Gentiles. I have no doubt that if one of Paul's old Hebrew friends had seen him, that he would have hailed him as 'Saul.' and Paul/Saul would have answered without batting an eye. One last little rabbit trail about names. Let's say that you and I encounter a certain dashing British fellow (or lady, as is the case at the moment) who is a Doctor, but not the medical kind. And this Doctor has a an interesting blue police box that is larger on the inside than on the outside and - HOLY COW! it can go back in time. If our Doctor friend asks me where to go - I'd immediately ask to go back to first century Jerusalem - I want to see Jesus! Here's the sort of interesting thing. If I could speak Aramaic - which was the dominant Jewish spoken language at the time - I would have a very hard time finding Jesus, no matter how many people I asked. They would probably look at me like I was crazy, and tell me they had never heard of a 'Jesus!' What if I asked for Saul, or Paul or Luke, or Matthew, or Peter? I'd get the same response! Why - because those people are myths that only appear in the Bible? NO!! Because Jesus wasn't called Jesus when He was here, and neither was Saul/Paul called Saul/Paul, or Luke called Luke or Matthew called Matthew or Peter called Peter! Confused yet? Well - don't be. Those names are ENGLISH - and English was not a language in the first century A.D. Saul's name would be pronounced more like "Shaul." (with an SH!) His Greek name would have been Paulos. How about Peter - you mean Petros (Greek) or Shimon Ben Yonah (Hebrew) or Keephah - the apparent Aramaic transliteration of the word 'stone.') Luke would be Loukas, and Matthew would be Levi or Matthean. What about Jesus? Well, most likely, he would have been Yehoshua Ben Yosef, which was later shortened to Yeshua Ben Yosef. Both are shortened forms of Joshua, son of Joseph, and the Hebrew name means "YHVH is salvation." Jesus name in Greek is apparently a transliteration of the Hebrew, and is " Iesous" which is pronounced sort of like Ee-ay-soos. Our English word 'Jesus' comes from that via a complicated bit of etymology that would be somewhat boring to non word-geeks. Here's a bit of a stunner if you haven't realized it yet: the name 'Jesus' and the name 'Joshua' are the same names in terms of meaning and origin. Joshua is an anglicized version of Yeshua and Jesus is an anglicized version of the Greek Iesous. (note: anglicized means " make English in form or character. ") We will talk at length about the name Jesus/Iesous at some point in an upcoming pod, but for now it is good to simply remember that Jesus/Peter/Paul/Luke/Mark, etc. are Anglicized versions of Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic names.

How to tell the truth. Christmas can be a sentimental season. There are no carols about the “slaughter of the innocents,” at least not in Protestant experience. But Matthew won’t leave us with a gauzy manger scene in a startlingly clean barn; he has an accompanying memory in mind that must have its say. We’re reminded of another Matthean warning, coming later: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force” (Matthew 11:12). To tell us your thoughts on this sermon, click through to the web posting and leave us a comment. Or, find us on social media: Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Or, email us the old-fashioned way: info@galileochurch.org. To contribute financially to the ongoing ministry of Galileo Church, find us on Venmo, Patreon, or PayPal, or just send a check to 6563 Teague Rd., Fort Worth, TX 76140.

This is what you've all been waiting for. . . or at least what Chris was waiting for. Time to learn about the Matthean version about the temptation of Christ (sans-Willem Dafoe). Enjoy listening to Satan vs. Jesus. As always, check us out on the 'gram @beerandbibleshow and at the website beerandbible.com

In Matthew’s account of the parable of the sower, Jesus demonstrates the meaning of three critical Matthean teachings: 1) “Seek and ye shall find,” 2) “The eye is the lamp of the body,” and 3) “Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven.” The last warning baffles modern Christians for whom religion is a pursuit of happiness vis-à-vis emotional and psychological consolation. Matthew’s Gospel dynamites this illusion in it’s proclamation and application of Isaiah, where the showdown between God and his people makes it very clear that some sins are definitely unforgivable. Richard and Fr. Marc discuss Matthew 13:14-16. Episode 302 Matthew 13:14-16; Music from https://filmmusic.io: “Come Play With Me” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) License: CC BY (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

People claim to be members of God’s household—to be followers of his teaching—but in the Roman Empire, your master determines your household, and in the Bible, your fears reveal your true master. Insofar as our fears control us, the Matthean metaphor of the Roman household contextualizes this dynamic perfectly, as a kind of slavery. If human beings are controlled by their fears, why not transfer this power to a Master who truly cares for us—not a Roman patrician, but a teacher—the one who gives us wisdom for the sake of the common good. Richard and Fr. Marc discuss Matthew 10:24-31. Episode Matthew 10:24-31 Subscribe: feedpress.me/the-bible-as-literature; Music from https://filmmusic.io: “Tyrant” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) License: CC BY (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

When Jesus crosses the Roman sea in Matthew, he brings the good news of the Matthean genology—of the liberation of God’s people from captivity—to the gentiles living under the control of Caesar. The Gadarene exorcism consolidates a pattern in Matthew: those whom we assume to be wrong are the very ones who obey the command of the Master. Richard and Fr. Marc discuss Matthew 8:28-34. Episode 270 Matthew 8:28-34; Subscribe: http://feedpress.me/the-bible-as-literature; “Nightdreams” Kevin MacLeod (http://incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http:// creativecommons .org/ licenses /by/3.0/

In this episode, Dr. Licona explores the idea of Matthean Priority (the hypothesis that the gospel of Matthew was written first). Who holds this hypothesis and what does it mean for other views on the gospel?The Risen Jesus podcast with Dr. Mike Licona equips people to have a deeper understanding of the Gospel, history, and New Testament studies. The program is hosted by Kurt Jaros and produced in partnership with Defenders Media.website | http://risenjesus.comfacebook | http://www.fb.me/michael.r.licona/twitter | http://www.twitter.com/michaellicona

This week we introduce ourselves to Jeremiah, the Reverse Moses, and an epic, ironic, mythological indictment of Israelite idolatry. Jeremiah leaks into the Matthew reading this week as Jesus is compared to the prophet in a Matthean addition to the original account from Mark. Read more »

In a typical Disney movie, the writers present a protagonist-coming-of-age who faces adversity (usually an identity crisis, an injustice, or both) discovers who they are, overcomes their challenge, and then, finally, realizes their true destiny...as king, queen, or a special person of sorts who can change the world. These stories are popular because they soothe our ego with reassurances of our self-importance and unique value. From the perspective of Scripture, they're the worst kind of lie. In the ancient world, it was bad enough that kings and emperors believed in their unique value and special destiny. Now everyone is a Caesar in their own right. Yikes! Thankfully, the Matthean genealogy not only disbelieves David's destiny but works actively to subvert it. Richard and Fr. Marc discuss Matthew 1:4-6. Episode 223 Matthew 1:4-6; Subscribe: http://feedpress.me/the-bible-as-literature; “Mistake the Getaway” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com (http://incompetech.com/)) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http:// creativecommons .org/ licenses /by/3.0/

How do we verify any early church claims since the gospels and the epistles along with "Church history" all point towards being propaganda? Why didn't Jesus stone Mary Magdalene?   I know Jesus calls out the stone throwers  (John 8:7), but wouldn't Jesus be without sin and therefore be able to throw the first stone?  Would it be a sin in His fatherâ??s eyes not to follow the laws of the OT?  I was wondering what did Judas betray in the first place?  Jesus was a local celebrity, his views were pretty much out there, known to anyone who wanted to be familiar with them. What kind of inside info did Judas have? Concerning the age of Jesus at the start of his mission: Why thirty? I think the Bible has its own internal logic so Jesus's age had to be thirty for some reason right? Mt 28:19 has an explicitly trinitarian formula for baptism, which contradicts the Jesus-name formula from Acts 2:38. Might the Matthean text be an interpolation? In whose name did John the Baptist baptize? Cannot one can believe in God, and see the Bible as moot? Some say that "He cuts off every branch that does not produce fruit" in John 15:2 could be translated as "He lifts-up every branch that does not produce fruit." Is that true? Are biblical scholars really so entrenched or fearful for their jobs that they really wonâ??t even consider the idea of Jesus as a myth?  What does that say about New Testament scholarship?  Theme music provided by: Peter Benjamin - composer for media www.peterbenjaminmusic.org peterbenjaminmusic@gmail.com

This podcast is a recording of the talk I gave at the third session of the Fall Scripture Study I'm leading at Our Lady of Lourdes: From Creation to Incarnation.  Today's focus was the Matthean genealogy.  The podcast runs for 35:35.

The Gospel of Matthew is one of the most important books of the Bible. Many great New Testament verses are memorized using the Matthean version. This Gospel also bridges the two testaments. Dr. David Bauer presents a survey of the Gospel - one that will be helpful to use in preparing for Bible study or sermon preparation.

NT Pod 29 discusses The Matthean Riddle, the question of why it is that Matthew's Gospel is apparently so Jewish and yet so anti-Jewish.It is thirteen and a half minutes long. Feel free to leave your comments below. NT Pod 29: The Matthean Riddle (mp3)NT Pod 29: The Matthean Riddle (mp3) (Alternative location)Key texts: Matthew 1-2, Matt. 3.7, 5.10-12, 6.7, 8.10-12, 9.20, 10.17, 12.34, 13.52, 21.43, 23.5, 23.23-24, 27.25.Thanks to Ram2000, Me and You, for the opening theme, released under a Creative Commons agreement.

NT Pod 29 discusses The Matthean Riddle, the question of why it is that Matthew's Gospel is apparently so Jewish and yet so anti-Jewish.It is thirteen and a half minutes long. Feel free to leave your comments below. NT Pod 29: The Matthean Riddle (mp3)NT Pod 29: The Matthean Riddle (mp3) (Alternative location)Key texts: Matthew 1-2, Matt. 3.7, 5.10-12, 6.7, 8.10-12, 9.20, 10.17, 12.34, 13.52, 21.43, 23.5, 23.23-24, 27.25.Thanks to Ram2000, Me and You, for the opening theme, released under a Creative Commons agreement.

John's Prologue Part 2 and Matthean Infancy Narrative

Matthean Infancy Narrative (Continued)