Bible Club - Matthew

[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:

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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Just in case others don't know, you can read and compare all the different translations for free at 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?