Bible Club - Matthew

[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 ]

[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 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.