Bible Club - Matthew

[madnak]

I really didn't want to start this on a bashing note, but I suppose you can only expect so much from a deeply biased host. Frankly I find the story bizarre and a little bit creepy. I'm also struck by how precisely the story of Jesus resembles the story of a cult of personality. Virtually everything - from events to techniques to teachings - is straight out of the CoP book.

Partly because I'm too tired and partly because I want to see how it develops, I'm not going to go into a big thing quoting verses and explaining my theory of "Jesus the con man." Any strong counterpoint? Especially from the atheist wing?

[runner4life7]

if you really felt this way save yourself the time and stop reading now. you have nothing to gain from reading the rest.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
if you really felt this way save yourself the time and stop reading now. you have nothing to gain from reading the rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please feel free to jump off a bridge. We are trying to have a Bible study group, because if nothing else it is an important book. In addition, several Christians have explained to us that this is the only true way to understand God, and that we cannot properly argue or criticize that which we do not understand. So we are trying to make an honest effort. If you plan on adding some useful insight from someone who has read the entire book several times and has a far greater grasp of it than us, feel free. If you plan on sniping at us and in general being shameful and embarassing to Christians, do it in another thread.

I'm serious, ruin something else.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I really didn't want to start this on a bashing note, but I suppose you can only expect so much from a deeply biased host. Frankly I find the story bizarre and a little bit creepy. I'm also struck by how precisely the story of Jesus resembles the story of a cult of personality. Virtually everything - from events to techniques to teachings - is straight out of the CoP book.

Partly because I'm too tired and partly because I want to see how it develops, I'm not going to go into a big thing quoting verses and explaining my theory of "Jesus the con man." Any strong counterpoint? Especially from the atheist wing?

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the interesting themes I got was how Matthew seemed to think it was important to show how Jesus was fulfilling the messianic prophecies throughout, but...well...the term self-fulfilling came to mind several times. The prophecies claimed the child would be named Emmanuel, first off. And Joseph took the child to Egypt for the purpose of fulfilling the prophecy, although it was also at the behest of God. It just seemed like the majority of fulfilled prophecies could easily be explained by Joseph simply being conversant in them...which he would have been, right? Joseph was a Jew and all of these prophecies would have been known for hundreds of years.

There were other things I thought were interesting, but thats my start.

[runner4life7]

I'm not trying to ruin anything, everything I said I meant in a serious way. He will just get very angry from the rest of the bible if Matthew, one of the happier less boring books bothered him this much. Sorry if what I said was offensive or something, but read his reaction and tell me that I'm wrong.

[MidGe]

Well the first thing that jumped at me was the genealogy and the pre-eminence given to Joseph. At last this seems to contradict the virgin birth.

Then of course are already present brimstones and fires threat, so horrific, that you'd think both the personage of Jesus and the writers were psychopaths.

Having read it in its entirety, I'd classify it as a poor story telling, full of inherent contradictions, as well as contradictions with other books. It present a dubious moral model of infinite punishment for what appears to be just critical thinking or an unwillingness to pander to a tyrannical psychopath.

I give it 0.5 out of 10.0, if you are in to horror etc. I was really tempted to go for a 0.0 out of 10.0.

I would recommend a read of SAB (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/intro.html) for a more detailed view of a lot of the issues with this book, which are really too numerous to list in a post.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
He will just get very angry from the rest of the bible if Matthew, one of the happier less boring books bothered him this much.

[/ QUOTE ]

The strongest emotional language he used was that the story was "creepy". Maybe you're just projecting your own anger at having your religion questioned.

[runner4life7]

at least list some of the many contradictions.

it wasnt the words it was the tone, by all means keep reading, just gave my 2 cents to save him time.

[MidGe]

Here (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/contra_list.html) is a list of 116 contradictions in Matthews. I don't wish to hijack the thread but only would like to give the opportunity to open minded people to access the SAB (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com) site and see for themselves.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Well the first thing that jumped at me was the genealogy and the pre-eminence given to Joseph. At last this seems to contradict the virgin birth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since Matthew doesn't seem to be interested in presenting the genealogy in an historically precise manner, why should we assume that his mention of Joseph was intended to establish biological heredity?

The gospel writer, in fact, makes a point of mentioning that Joseph was the husband of Mary, and not, one might infer, a progenitor in his own right. It seems likely, then, that Matthew's purpose was to make a case for Jesus's legal (not consanguineous) right to bear the title of Christ (or Anointed One).

[MidGe]

ironunkind,

but why is your interpretation superior to mine. I really think that the focus on Joseph is significant and disprove the virgin birth. Note that this statement is not anti-christian, I know of many christians that do not believe in the virgin birth!

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
but why is your interpretation superior to mine. I really think that the focus on Joseph is significant and disprove the virgin birth.

[/ QUOTE ]

In light of Matthew's subsequent presentation of a virgin birth, it seems more likely than not that his inclusion of Joseph in the genealogy served some purpose other than proving biological heredity.

[ QUOTE ]
Note that this statement is not anti-christian, I know of many christians that do not believe in the virgin birth!

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. Matthew doesn't appear to be one of these, however.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
In light of Matthew's subsequent presentation of a virgin birth

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the exegesis of the original term used for virgin also meant young woman?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In light of Matthew's subsequent presentation of a virgin birth

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the exegesis of the original term used for virgin also meant young woman?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that whatever book in the old testament (Isaiah 7:14) talks about the birth of jesus...it uses a word that simply means "young woman"..but the writer of matthew took the word to mean "virgin"..so in matthew..I believe that the word they us is indeed the word for "virgin"..

that's how I understand it anyways..I'm sure a google search can solve this mystery in any event

[ICMoney]

[ QUOTE ]

One of the interesting themes I got was how Matthew seemed to think it was important to show how Jesus was fulfilling the messianic prophecies throughout, but...well...the term self-fulfilling came to mind several times. The prophecies claimed the child would be named Emmanuel, first off. And Joseph took the child to Egypt for the purpose of fulfilling the prophecy, although it was also at the behest of God. It just seemed like the majority of fulfilled prophecies could easily be explained by Joseph simply being conversant in them...which he would have been, right? Joseph was a Jew and all of these prophecies would have been known for hundreds of years.

There were other things I thought were interesting, but thats my start.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying people did things just to fulfill prophecies?

If you look into what the prophecies (300+) predicted you would be amazed.

ICMoney

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One of the interesting themes I got was how Matthew seemed to think it was important to show how Jesus was fulfilling the messianic prophecies throughout, but...well...the term self-fulfilling came to mind several times. The prophecies claimed the child would be named Emmanuel, first off. And Joseph took the child to Egypt for the purpose of fulfilling the prophecy, although it was also at the behest of God. It just seemed like the majority of fulfilled prophecies could easily be explained by Joseph simply being conversant in them...which he would have been, right? Joseph was a Jew and all of these prophecies would have been known for hundreds of years.

There were other things I thought were interesting, but thats my start.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying people did things just to fulfill prophecies?

If you look into what the prophecies (300+) predicted you would be amazed.

ICMoney

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm saying, of the dozen or so prophecies listed as fulfilled in Matthew, there were few if any that couldn't easily be 'fulfilled' on purpose, and even those were vague or vaguely applied. For example, its a bit of a stretch to consider Jesus as Emmanuel.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One of the interesting themes I got was how Matthew seemed to think it was important to show how Jesus was fulfilling the messianic prophecies throughout, but...well...the term self-fulfilling came to mind several times. The prophecies claimed the child would be named Emmanuel, first off. And Joseph took the child to Egypt for the purpose of fulfilling the prophecy, although it was also at the behest of God. It just seemed like the majority of fulfilled prophecies could easily be explained by Joseph simply being conversant in them...which he would have been, right? Joseph was a Jew and all of these prophecies would have been known for hundreds of years.

There were other things I thought were interesting, but thats my start.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying people did things just to fulfill prophecies?

If you look into what the prophecies (300+) predicted you would be amazed.

ICMoney

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm saying, of the dozen or so prophecies listed as fulfilled in Matthew, there were few if any that couldn't easily be 'fulfilled' on purpose, and even those were vague or vaguely applied. For example, its a bit of a stretch to consider Jesus as Emmanuel.

[/ QUOTE ]


Better yet, all it would take would be a SINGLE messianic prophecy that wasn't fulfilled to basically completely dismiss claims of Jesus as the Messiah.

With that in mind, its not too surprising how apparently loosely they were interpreted.

[MidGe]

ICMoney,

Honestly, if you look at it with an open mind, then, it becomes really laughable to look at the mind gymnastics required to get the prophecies fulfilled. I am not capable of such contortions of mind. If I was ,I am sure, I could prove anything using any book. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[EYEWHITES]

i think it would be better if this were titled Bible Club Matthew Chapter 1. Given there is alot of chapters. If it is really going to be a bible study, it needs to be broken down into sections, so it can be dicussed.
Atleast point out something you found wrong, instead of linking people to a website, that someone eles made, even if you have to copy and paste them here put something more than" Partly because I'm too tired and partly because I want to see how it develops, I'm not going to go into a big thing quoting verses and explaining my theory of "Jesus the con man." Any strong counterpoint? Especially from the atheist wing?

anything worth doing is worth doing right. right?

[madnak]

As I said, I wanted to see how the thread would develop. I really didn't want these to be big argument threads, but it looks like there may be no avoiding it. I was hoping for a variety of interpretations.

MidGe, I agree with your viewpoint but I'm hoping these threads will be more about personal reactions than anything. Let's leave the SAB and other external sites out of it. Also, I'd like to discuss the Bible in full context, and since this is the first book we're reading I'd prefer if we didn't discuss other books yet. ICMoney, that works both ways. We're discussing the story of Matthew right now, broader discussion will have to wait until we officially reach the prophecies themselves.

EYEWHITES, this isn't a Bible study per se, it's more of a book club that happens to be centered around the Bible. A close reading of any given chapter is beyond the scope of this project. In terms of "doing it right," my hope was that we'd have civil discussions rather than the normal back-and-forth, but that may have been an unrealistic expectation. The Bible tends to evoke strong emotions from people on both sides of the fence, and as a result it's easy for discussion to devolve into flame wars. Given that my own interpretation was less than charitable to the Christians, I had hoped to allow a more peaceful discussion of the story to develop. Still, if it's worth doing it's worth doing right, so I'll move forward and post my specific thoughts.

I'd like to say beforehand that, in spite of my various problems with the text, this is a Bible club and not a Bible bashing club. To the Christians, it may be more appropriate to present your own interpretations than to bother with point-by-point refutations of the atheists.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, its a bit of a stretch to consider Jesus as Emmanuel.

[/ QUOTE ]
See here: (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html)

[ QUOTE ]
Another problem is that nowhere in the New Testament does Mary, Jesus' mother, refer to him as "Immanuel." Thus we have no evidence that one of the conditions of the prophecy was ever fulfilled.

I am surprised this argument is used here--it actually carries little force. A couple of quick pieces of evidence to show this:

People and groups in the OT were OFTEN getting special 'place' names and temporary names, to be used for a specific purpose. Solomon, for example, got TWO names at his birth (II Sam 12.25)--Solomon and Jedidiah. No reference is ever made to Jedidiah after that, but it doesn't seem to be an issue. See also the story about Pashur in Jer 20:1-6.



Israel and Judah consistently receive 'temporary' and symbolic names in the Prophets (cf. Ezek 23 and Is 62.3-4)


Matthew is the one who quotes the 'Immanuel' passage one verse AFTER the he reports the angel's command to name the son JESUS, AND four verses BEFORE reporting that his parents called him 'Jesus'...he doesn't show the SLIGHTEST concern over this "problem"! (in other words, it WASN'T an issue in that culture). This is even more striking in that Matthew is the one arguing that the passage was fulfilled! --the name issue wasn't an issue.


If you had to call the kid 'Immanuel" for the prophecy to be fulfilled, what in the world are we gonna do with Is 9.6--where the child gets 4 names (i.e. wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting father, prince of peace)?!


And actually, we don't think it was his mother who had to call him 'Immanuel' anyway. Most modern bibles have a footnote at the 'she shall call him...' text, that explains that in the MSS, we have a couple of variants (he, she, they)...Matthew quotes it as 'they'...This could apply to ANYBODY who acknowledged that Jesus was God walking among his people--even John 1 would qualify for this.


This is just not generally considered a problem:



"There is no problem in referring the names Jesus and Emmanuel to the same person. This may well be the reason Matthew spells out the meaning of the name Emmanuel, meqÆ hJmw`n oJ qeov", “God with us” (LXX Isa 8:8, 10). Indeed this is not a personal name but rather a name that is descriptive of the task this person will perform. Bringing the presence of God to man, he brings the promised salvation—which, as Matthew has already explained, is also the meaning of the name Jesus (v 21b). “They” who will call him Emmanuel are those who understand and accept the work he has come to do. Matthew probably intends the words of Jesus at the end of his Gospel—“Behold I am with you always, until the end of the age” (28:20)—to correspond to the meaning of Emmanuel. Jesus is God, among his people to accomplish their salvation (see Fenton, “Matthew,” 80–82).


[/ QUOTE ]

[madnak]

Why does Matthew creep me out, and why do I think Jesus was a con man? There are a few reasons. I'll start with the similarities to a cult of personality.

First I'll touch on the prophecies because vhawk has already brought them up. Virtually all of them mentioned here seem to have been fulfilled deliberately, which to me seems to go against the point of prophecies. They're also a bit "loose" in many cases. First, the messiah is to be called "Immanuel," but apparently the fact his name is different is explained based on the translation of Immanuel, "God with us" (1:23). Seems loose. The next few seem more compelling - Jesus happens to be born in Bethlehem and carried to Egypt as a tragedy happens near "Ramah" (2:6, 2:15, 2:18). More compelling, but rather vague. The next prophecy, Jesus chooses to fulfill - he simply decides to move to the region of Zebulun and Naphtali (4:13-4:16). The prophecies from here on are all vague and unsubstantiated. Many of them also involve Jesus deliberately fulfilling them. One of the best examples is 21:5, where Jesus actually decides to ride in on a donkey and a colt to fulfill the prophecy. To me it's suspicious that Jesus worked so hard to deliberately fulfill the prophecies.

Then there's the way he recruited his disciples. It seems almost random. The list of disciples isn't very impressive (10:2-10:4). In fact, he starts by just calling to the first peasants he sees (4:18, 4:21). It seems almost like he's looking for gullible followers, and seeking to establish a quick power based of suggestible people very quickly. Moreover, all of the disciples flee and reject Jesus at the end, and one of them even betrays him - it doesn't seem like Jesus was particularly selective.

And he also made sure to tell people that they were blessed for being persecuted (5:11). It's more than that. He keeps saying that pure faith in him is the one thing they should care about, and they should forget about everything else (6:25-6:33, 10:22). This is another tactic typical of cult leaders - some might even go so far as to call it psychological coercion or "brainwashing."

And why the constant persecution? Well, it does fit the view of the unlikely messiah. But it also fits the cult - rejected almost everywhere they go, hated for their teachings, but they find some "true believers" here and there. Jesus is constantly moving from place to place (9:35), and we have some evidence of why. Most of the time it isn't explained, but in 8:18-8:34, for example, it's explained that the people of the land drove him out. In 10:23, he even tells his disciples to stay in a place until they piss everyone off, and then to flee to the next city. Again, very cult.

And his speech is always, without exception, very black and white. It's also vague. Vague, black-and-white teachings are the primary method used by cult leaders to keep their members in check. By separating people into the "righteous" and the "unrighteous" (or the sheep and goats if you like), and by constantly (and in Matthew, I mean constantly) threatening severe punishment for the unrighteous, they incentivize zealotry. Also, by keeping the commandments vague and veiled, they can selectively apply them to exert pressure where it's needed. Favorite techniques among such leaders are "if you aren't with me you're against me" (12:30), and "get rid of anything that will corrupt you" (even if it's your own body - 5:29, 18:8). Another good manipulation is to suggest that the wise and learned people (basically everyone who disagrees with the cult and has good reasons for doing so) are deluded in some special way and shouldn't be listened to (don't take their leaven). Many of his teachings are so black and white as to be unrealistic - is a "good person" really incapable of doing any wrong, and is a "bad person" really incapable of doing any good? (7:16-7:18, 12:31-12:37.)

Then there's credibility, which will surely be controversial but is highly relevant. Jesus says the Kingdom of God is at hand constantly, but there is no indication of this. He says that those who ask will receive (7:8), but again, if anything the reverse seems true. He says of his extreme prophecies, "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (24:34). He continually tells people not to reveal his miracles. He claims to come preserving the law of Israel (5:17-5:19), yet he destroys it (there is no mention of a "new covenant," in fact he claims that even the least of the laws of Israel is critically important). When he dies, only his closest disciples seem to witness the resurrection - all of the other witnesses claim that the body has been stolen.

Most importantly, Jesus lives rather like a typical cult leader. He seems to take his pleasure where he can get it. He disregards the old laws as he will where it comforts him. He is constantly waited upon by young women (and even has expensive perfumes applied to him). He acts impetuously, destroying a fig tree when he wants fruit and it has none, turning over tables and having a temper tantrum in the temple before commandeering it. And many of his sermons seem designed as excuses for this kind of behavior. At minimum Jesus benefited greatly from his status as a leader, at least until his crucifixion. And again, Jesus was so hated that even Barabbas was chosen above him by the people - those "priests and scribes" must have been mighty vengeful and mighty persuasive to convince the populace that it was better to release a horrible murderer than a peaceful man who did no harm... And the descriptions in the end have an ominous air of what almost seems like failure to them. Jesus pleads with God to spare him from his obligation, and sounds almost panicked. On the cross, he yells that God has "forsaken him." What are we to make of this?

Everything makes Jesus sound like a cult leader. I saw nothing that wasn't consistent with this interpretation.

There was some positive stuff in here, but to me it seemed buried. Be nice to your enemies, that's the mark of a truly kind person (5:46-5:48). The unfortunate need help more than the fortunate (9:11-9:13). The workers are paid the same in the parable of the vineyard (20:12-20:16). And some very interesting things. You'll be measured by your standard? (7:2.) God isn't the God of the dead? (22:32.) But mostly it was downright creepy.

[Willd]

Taking Matthew alone with no reference to the rest of the bible then I can see how you can come to the conclusion that Jesus was a con artist/cult leader. The main argument against this in Matthew is that he allowed himself to be crucified - Pilate gave him the chance to deny being the Son of God in order to save himself.

Not a lot of con artists would allow themselves to be killed just to keep the act going. The only possible justification for this is if his entire aim was to create a cult that lived on after his death. However, as you said yourself the disciples rejected Jesus after his death so the chance of the cult continuing was almost nil - until you take into account the "resurrection".

I could go into more detail about arguments against the body being stolen but since you wanted to keep this to just Matthew I will stop here. If you want me to elaborate then I will do (although I'm going on holiday tomorrow for 10 days so I might struggle to reply for a while)

[Lestat]

I have a Gregorian edition. I wonder if it's even worth reading. Is this version much different than the King James? It seems a hard read.

What strikes me so far, are the elaborate lineages and all the begots. To the point where I have to ask: How can this stuff be made up? Who would make it up? Why would it be made up? Has anyone followed these lineages throughout the entire bible and made sure they all agree and are without contradictions? If so, wow... These authors really did put some time and effort into all of this. As for the text so far...

I'm up to the point where Jesus is delivering parables. He has performed many miracles and has apparently given his disciples the same powers to heal, although I have not yet read where a disciple performs a miracle. On several occasions Jesus instructs people not to tell of what they saw. I don't get that. Does He want people to know about Him or not?

Jesus also seems to be changing (or adding), to the OT. Giving new, seemingly more strict rules and definitions on how people are supposed to live and act.

So far, I don't get the same sense of tyranny that some people do, except for the threat of hell for those who don't follow God's wishes. My main curiosity has always been the motivation behind the bible. Who was Matthew? Where is he getting his info?

[ICMoney]

The idea that Jesus did things just to fulfill prophecy is ignorant.

Did Jesus choose to be born into the line of David?

Did Jesus decide to be born to a virgin in the town of Bethlehem?

Did Jesus convince the authorities to crucify him, but not break his legs like they did to the other two?

Did Jesus tell the soldiers to cast lots for his clothing?

How did Jesus cause the prophecies to be fulfilled that said he would be betrayed (1) by a friend (2) for thirty pieces of silver (3) and the money would be used to buy the potter’s field?

Can you disprove the resurrection?

I could cite many more specific examples.

It is estimated that Jesus fulfilled over 400 prophecies.

Linked is an article (http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP1W1299.pdf) that describes the probability of one person fulfilling 8 or 48 of these.

The author says that the chance of eight prophecies coming true in one man is the same as filling the entire state of Texas two feet deep with silver dollars and correctly finding a specific coin.

He says the probability of one man fulfilling 48/400+ prophecies is 1/10^157. You would have a similar chance of finding a designated electron in an electron ball that is billions and billions of light years big.



Thanks
ICMoney

[Sephus]

that article is a joke for many reasons. (that's not a knee-jerk reaction either, i would have said the same thing when i was a christian)

by the way, how did they calculate the probability of a particular man being born of a virgin?

[Lestat]

Can you tell me who these prophets were and when they made these predictions? Is this all documented in the OT? Sorry, I'm very ignorant about the bible and am trying to learn.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">For example, its a bit of a stretch to consider Jesus as Emmanuel. </font>

Yes, I didn't get that either. First I'm reading that the prophecy says the baby to be born is named Emmanuel, then all of a sudden it's Jesus and there is no further mention about it.

[EYEWHITES]

[ QUOTE ]


We're discussing the story of Matthew right now, broader discussion will have to wait until we officially reach the prophecies themselves.

EYEWHITES, this isn't a Bible study per se, it's more of a book club that happens to be centered around the Bible. A close reading of any given chapter is beyond the scope of this project. In terms of "doing it right," my hope was that we'd have civil discussions rather than the normal back-and-forth, but that may have been an unrealistic expectation. The Bible tends to evoke strong emotions from people on both sides of the fence, and as a result it's easy for discussion to devolve into flame wars. Given that my own interpretation was less than charitable to the Christians, I had hoped to allow a more peaceful discussion of the story to develop. Still, if it's worth doing it's worth doing right, so I'll move forward and post my specific thoughts.

I'd like to say beforehand that, in spite of my various problems with the text, this is a Bible club and not a Bible bashing club. To the Christians, it may be more appropriate to present your own interpretations than to bother with point-by-point refutations of the atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

i was in no way trying to start a "fight", if it came off that way i apologize, i msunderstood how you were doing this.i like the idea and plan on participating

[dknightx]

the thing to remember when reading the bible is that there is A LOT of symbolism. madnak, im not going to refute your post point by point, because as you stated, this shouldn't be a place to argue back and forth.

I will simply say that in order to truly understand one book of the bible, you really need to understand the whole bible. This takes years, and you can't really be expected to understand it in one (or a few) reading of the same thing. For example, the "fig tree" was symbolic of the nation of israel ...

anyways, reading your whole post just seems like a very shallow and misinterpretation of the whole book. Perfectly reasonable for you to feel that way, but I must say i disagree with your analysis.

[dknightx]

another thing i should add is if you REALLY want to do a "book study" on the bible, you should either purchase an extensive study bible, as well as a bible with "strong numbers". In addition, it may be helpful to purchase commentaries on particular books of the bible you may be studying at the time.

... i mean depending on how serious you really are.

[surftheiop]

Also these verses lend to Matthew believing she was a virgin,

18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly

( think come together refers to not only their future marriage but also means to have sexual relations)

[surftheiop]

You do know that Jesus wasnt Jesus' name

[ICMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">For example, its a bit of a stretch to consider Jesus as Emmanuel. </font>

Yes, I didn't get that either. First I'm reading that the prophecy says the baby to be born is named Emmanuel, then all of a sudden it's Jesus and there is no further mention about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question.


Immanuel means God with us, which signifies that Jesus is God in the flesh.

No, his mother did not call him Immanuel. She called him Jesus.

Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, which means the Lord saves.

Mt 1: (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mt%201&amp;version=31)

20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins."
22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"[d]—which means, "God with us."
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

I don’t see a problem with Immanuel versus Jesus.

ICMoney

[ICMoney]

Did you know that Jesus claimed to be God?

ICMoney

[ICMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
that article is a joke for many reasons. (that's not a knee-jerk reaction either, i would have said the same thing when i was a christian)

by the way, how did they calculate the probability of a particular man being born of a virgin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying it is impossible to calculate this probability?

In the article it states:

They made their estimates conservative enough so that there
was finally unanimous agreement even among the most skeptical students.
But then Professor Stoner took their estimates and made them even more conservative.
He also encouraged other skeptics or scientists to make their own estimates to see if
his conclusions were more than fair. Finally, he submitted his figures for review to a Committee
of the American Scientific Affiliation. Upon examination, they verified that his calculations
were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented. (1)

(1) Peter W. Stoner, Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of Prophecy and the Bible (Chicago,
Moody Press, 1969), p. 4.

ICMoney

[Sephus]

for one thing:

[ QUOTE ]
The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science. In matters of science and Christian faith, we offer Christian scholarship, education, fellowship and service to ASA members, churches, educational institutions, the scientific community, and society.

[/ QUOTE ]

for another, i have no idea what

[ QUOTE ]
Upon examination, they verified that his calculations
were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented.

[/ QUOTE ]

means and i don't think that's my fault.

[Magic_Man]

I'm a little behind, but I thought I'd jump into the club, if only because a thorough knowledge of the bible will be useful for trivia contests and further insight into Lost when it returns in 6 weeks /images/graemlins/smile.gif Just in case others don't know, you can read and compare all the different translations for free at www.biblegateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com)

I know it's been brought up a lot, but the Immanuel thing really did throw me off. My NAS version says:

[ QUOTE ]

"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

"BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."

And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,

but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

[/ QUOTE ]

After that, the word Immanuel is never printed again. The fact that it's specifically translated "and they shall call his name Immanuel" instead of "they shall call him Immanuel" makes it even more confusing. Since Immanuel means "God with us", it would make some sense if it said "they shall call him God with us", since that's the whole point. It's weird that they say it will be his name, and then the next line says that his name is Jesus. Very confusing.

Another thing I noticed was that if the stories really did get distorted "telephone-style", then you'd expect to see a lot of exaggerations and possibly repeats of events. For example, if Jesus really did cure a single leper or blind man, and everyone was completely amazed by it, you might expect later generations to claim that he was curing lepers, cripples, and blind men wherever he went. Ditto with the loaves &amp; fishes tails. If a few loaves and fishes fed a large crowd once, you might expect that crowd to grow larger each time the story was told, until you are feeding 5000 with 5 loaves, and then you go ahead and do it again later. It all reminds me of a "William Wallace is seven feet tall, and breathes fire" kind of thing.

Also, I thought it was odd that after each parable, it always says "the crowds heard this and they were amazed." I don't see what's so amazing about telling a parable, particularly if the parable is contrived or confusing. Mostly I would think that someone that spoke only in parables was strange and annoying, not amazing or wise.

On a positive note, I certainly did learn a lot about the Christ story, and I can see that I'm definitely going to gain a much better working knowledge of the bible and particularly Christian ideology. This should be interesting.

~M^2

[madnak]

Right, it's absolutely 100% consistent with the telephone thing, and with a typical (though successful) cult.

That doesn't necessarily mean that's what it is per se, but that it's exactly what we'd predict from such a situation casts more than a little doubt on it.

Also, there are no records of his miracles at all, other than hearsay from Christians who lived decades after they supposedly happened. Jesus was supposed to have healed dozens upon dozens, to have fed thousands upon thousands, and apparently even to have been rather popular among the people. And yet, we have more direct evidence of other cults during that time than we do of Jesus and his miracles. If the miracles really happened it seems almost unimaginable that eyewitnesses wouldn't have recorded them. Also Jesus was supposed to have been a major thorin in the side of the Pharisees, not just "some other cult dude." So if the Pharisees were in fact so broken about about him, wouldn't there be records relating to that as well? Etc, etc.

[Magic_Man]

Do we start with Genesis next week/are you going to make some post about it?

[Magic_Man]

On another note, this story made the whole Judas thing confusing to me. What did Judas actually do to betray JC/why did they need him? Even Jesus himself says that they saw him preaching and healing every day in the town, so they must have known what he looked like. The story (and my memories of Jesus Christ Superstar) make it seem like the soldiers coming to capture him needed Judas to tell them which person was Jesus. Shouldn't this have been obvious? What was Judas' actual role? Maybe I'm just dense.

~M^2

[benjdm]

No, that's a very valid question and a bit of a conundrum. An intriguing new idea might explain it indirectly - the idea is about the gospel of Mark and the technique of Mimesis. Since Matthew used Mark as a source, it most likely was just copied out of Mark.

[ QUOTE ]
Review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark
.

(by Dennis R. MacDonald; Yale University, 2000)
.


"MacDonald begins by describing what scholars of antiquity take for granted: anyone who learned to write Greek in the ancient world learned from Homer. Homer was the textbook. Students were taught to imitate Homer, even when writing on other subjects, or to rewrite passages of Homer in prose, using different vocabulary. Thus, we can know for certain that the author of Mark's Gospel was thoroughly familiar with the works of Homer and well-trained in recasting Homeric verse into new prose tales...
.

"Once the evangelist linked the sufferings of Jesus to those of Odysseus, he found in the epic a reservoir of landscapes, characterizations, type-scenes, and plot devices useful for crafting his narrative" (p. 19). Of course, all throughout MacDonald points out coinciding parallels with the Old Testament and other Jewish literature, but even these parallels have been molded according to a Homeric model in every case he examines. Consider two of the many mysteries MacDonald's theory explains, and these are even among the weakest parallels that he identifies in the book:
.

* Why do the chief priests need Judas to identify Jesus in order to arrest him? This makes absolutely no sense, since many of their number had debated him in person, and his face, after a triumphal entry and a violent tirade in the temple square, could hardly have been more public. But MacDonald's theory that Judas is a type of Melanthius solves this puzzle: Melanthius is the servant who betrays Odysseus and even fetches arms for the suitors to fight Odysseus—just as Judas brings armed guards to arrest Jesus—and since none of the suitors knew Odysseus, it required Melanthius to finally identify him. MacDonald also develops several points of comparison between the suitors and the Jewish authorities. Thus, this theme of "recognition" stayed in the story even at the cost of self-contradiction. Of note is the fact that Homer names Melanthius with a literary point in mind: for his name means "The Black One," whereas Mark seems to be maligning the Jews by associating Melanthius with Judas, whose name is simply "Judah," i.e. the kingdom of the Jews, after which the Jews as a people, and the region of Judaea, were named.
.

* Why does Pilate agree to free a prisoner as if it were a tradition to do so? Such a practice could hardly have been approved by Rome, since any popular rebel leader who happened to be in custody during the festival would always escape justice. And given Pilate's reputation for callous ruthlessness and disregard for Jewish interests, it is most implausible to have him participating in such a self-defeating tradition—a tradition for which there is no other evidence of any kind, not even a precedent or similar practice elsewhere. But if Barabbas is understood as the type of Irus, Odysseus' panhandling competitor in the hall of the suitors, the story makes sense as a clever fiction. Both Irus and Barabbas were scoundrels, both were competing with the story's hero for the attention of the enemy (the suitors in one case, the Jews in the other), and both are symbolic of the enemy's culpability.

[/ QUOTE ]

From here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html).

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, it's absolutely 100% consistent with the telephone thing, and with a typical (though successful) cult.

That doesn't necessarily mean that's what it is per se, but that it's exactly what we'd predict from such a situation casts more than a little doubt on it.

Also, there are no records of his miracles at all, other than hearsay from Christians who lived decades after they supposedly happened. Jesus was supposed to have healed dozens upon dozens, to have fed thousands upon thousands, and apparently even to have been rather popular among the people. And yet, we have more direct evidence of other cults during that time than we do of Jesus and his miracles. If the miracles really happened it seems almost unimaginable that eyewitnesses wouldn't have recorded them. Also Jesus was supposed to have been a major thorin in the side of the Pharisees, not just "some other cult dude." So if the Pharisees were in fact so broken about about him, wouldn't there be records relating to that as well? Etc, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the answer is obvious. I know it, you know it. But try not to lose the forest for the trees. I know you're just starting it, however, I feel it's the greatest story ever told. Behind all the goofball stuff, is a story of a small group of people who wanted to change the world - and they did.

Argue about the motives and methods, but you can't help but acknowledge the results. Christianity has become the most powerful force on earth. Despite the incomprehensible statements and level of apparent gullibility needed to accept the message - people have. Millions upon millions of people have fought, sacrificed, and died to perpetuate that message, and if you look closely at what you're reading you might glimpse the reason. That small group of people may have understood human nature and the human psyche better than you think.

That small group of people ended up toppling dynasties and kings, and yes the power ended up being usurped and misdirected, but try not to lose sight of what you are reading - a doctrine of revolution.

[vhawk01]

Bump, because I was busy over the weekend and I want to know if we are moving on to a new book this week or not?

[madnak]

Yup, Genesis tonight. Did you not read it? Maybe it'd be better to hold off until next week given the holidays?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Yup, Genesis tonight. Did you not read it? Maybe it'd be better to hold off until next week given the holidays?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read it a few times, its the one I am most familiar with, and I will give it another once-over today. Don't change anything on my account.