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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[txag007]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
See here:

[ 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 ]

[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.