> But Matthew is not inconsistent in his claims.
He's consistent? Can you be more specific? From my point of view, he provides different genealogies than in the OT, misinterprets Jewish prophecy, and used the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew version of the OT. His virgin birth story doesn't even agree with Luke's. The virgin birth is never mentioned by Paul, even though he does talk about Jesus's birth.
> Matthew was writing to Jews—they were his target audience. If he wanted to connect and influence positively, he would not start off with a story that would be repulsive and heretical to them. He had no motive to write it if it were not true.
Again this assumes that "Matthew" knew what he was doing. Obviously the vast majority of Jews did not find his case compelling. More importantly it assumes that what "Matthew" believed was true=what actually was true. You still haven't addressed this point.
> I'm not stupid.
I never said you were. I apologize if my tone made you defensive.
> Of course not. I gave 11 points, not one.
Ok, fixed it: So because you haven't come across teachings that you like better plus 10 other reasons, he must be God?
> I don't misunderstand the burden of proof. I gave you some points of evidence: (1) It is totally out of character, and (2) there are no credible stories to the contrary. Now, since I have offered a case of sorts, what is your rebuttal to the contrary, with refutation that Jesus did have a life of sex?
I'm not sure you do. I'm not claiming that Jesus did have sex. I'm just not convinced that he abstained. I'm also not sure that we know Jesus's character. It is different in all four Gospels. In the stories he is known for breaking cultural norms and flouting certain religious rules so it doesn't seem too much of a stretch.
> There is evidence of the resurrection: (1) Jesus was buried and his burial place was known, (2) the tomb was empty on Sunday morning, (3) the stone was rolled away, (4) people investigated the site. There's more. It's not just claims, but examining the evidence at hand.
They are all claims made in the canonical Gospels, this is not evidence. The accounts don't even agree on what happened at the tomb!
> The creed of 1 Cor 15.3-6 is identified by a wide swath of scholars, both Christian and non, both favorable and skeptical, as a creed that was already in a formula within 2-5 years after Jesus' resurrection.
Citation please?
> Everything. Everything we know about him was written decades later by Suetonius and Cassius Dio. We have no writings of Nero's life contemporaneous to his life.
Okay? I don't have any strong beliefs about events in Nero's life. If Suetonius, Tacitus, and Cassius Dio said that he was resurrected, I wouldn't believe their story either. Same with Alexander the Great.
> But you seem to be quite willing to reject stories about Jesus because they are a few decades old, but willing to consider the stories of Alexander even though they are centuries removed from his life.
No, I don't reject Jesus's stories because they are "decades old". I reject them because they violate the laws of physics and biology and a story is not good enough evidence for it. The "decades old" part of it just adds another variable.
> Some make a few. Very little in Hinduism, a little more in Islam, but very brief and "copied" mostly from the Bible.
The Ramayana? The Mahabharata? The Norse Eddas? The Book of Mormon? Islamic stories about establishing the Caliphate? These all make historical claims of events. Christianity is not unique in this regard.
> There are stories from other religions, but they are qualitatively different.
How? Please demonstrate this.
> Would I change my mind? Again, remember this was 1 of 11 points, not a stand-alone reason. All my marbles aren't in one bag.
Which is why I specifically said "on this particular point". I can rephrase this if you want. If you heard similar stories about life changes from Hindus and Muslims would you revise your opinion that Christianity provides qualitatively different life changes than other religions?
Board index ‹ Miracles
14 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: Did only Jesus do miracles?
by jimwalton » Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:33 pm
> He's consistent? Can you be more specific?
The Gospel of Matthew is structured around five massive teaching segments given by Jesus (possibly the "logia" mentioned by Papias). Around those 5 blocks Matthew consistently and logically develops his theme that Jesus is the Messianic King, the successor to David and Moses. He portrays Jesus as...
- The new Moses (deliverer who rescues people from their sins)
- The new David (king who rules over God’s kingdom)
- The new Abraham (founder of the new chosen people)
- The new Creator (performing the miracle of new creation in people)
- The new Temple (God with us acting to make his people new)
Inside those themes he often references OT Scriptures to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy. It's all quite logically assembled and consistent in its claims.
> he provides different genealogies than in the OT
Genealogies in the ancient world were not as we regard them today: as chronological listings of every generation to trace time. In the ancient world they were to fulfill political or religious agendas, and they often skipped generations to make their point.
> misinterprets Jewish prophecy
Matthew, by his own admission, interprets prophecy to show how Jesus "filled it up" with more meaning (Mt. 1.22). He understanding OT passages as a pattern to be filled out. He takes the patterns and applies them to a new situation, like a coffee cup having something new poured into it. There is no hidden meaning in the OT that Matthew has discovered; rather, the meaning was not in the OT, but Matthew adds new meaning to the prophetic concept. And again, he's very consistent in his use of the OT this way.
> and used the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew version of the OT.
Yep, but the LXX was regarded as a good tool for public use.
> His virgin birth story doesn't even agree with Luke's
They overlap cleanly without contradiction. There are no problems here. They just tell the same story from different perspectives. You and I would report the recent election similarly. We would each tell it differently, but not necessarily contradictorily.
> The virgin birth is never mentioned by Paul, even though he does talk about Jesus's birth.
Yeah, but that's of no consequence. Paul's overarching and repeated concern is the death and resurrection of Jesus. He never even mentions any other events of Jesus's life.
> So because you haven't come across teachings that you like better plus 10 other reasons, he must be God?
That's right. All 11 reasons are what convince me. It's the weight of total evidence, not a singular observation.
> Sex...In the stories he is known for breaking cultural norms and flouting certain religious rules so it doesn't seem too much of a stretch.
Absolutely. He was great at breaking cultural normals and flouting religious trivialities (without ever breaking the law). He respected women, showed compassion for the sick, treated the poor with the same dignity as the rich, etc. But he never did anything that even borders on immoral. That's a different category, and the burden of proof would be on you if you claim that he crossed that line somewhere somehow.
> They are all claims made in the canonical Gospels, this is not evidence.
Of course the canonical Gospels are evidence, unless you're functioning under some kind of a priori bias. But even common sense would tell us Jesus' body was buried, that people knew the location, and that location was vacated on Sunday. Jesus was no common vagrant. This was a significant public and historical event of that weekend, especially for his followers, his detractors (the Jewish leaders), and the local Roman government.
> The accounts don't even agree on what happened at the tomb!
They each tell it from their perspective, but the various accounts are harmonizable without contradiction.
> 1 Cor. 15.3-6...Citation please?
Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler write: "The earliest report of Jesus’ resurrection goes back so close to the event itself that it cannot have been rendered unreliable by legendary development. Scholars have dated the creed of 1 Cor. 15.3-8 to within 2-8 years of Jesus’ resurrection. It is likely that Paul received this material three years after his conversion, when he took a trip to Jerusalem and got it directly from the eyewitnesses Peter and James themselves. ( - Gary Habermas)
"A number of the accounts in Acts 1-5, 10 and 13 also include some creeds that report very early data about Jesus’ death and resurrection. 'The earliest evidence we have for the resurrection almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place. This is the evidence contained in the early sermons in the Acts of the Apostles. … There can be no doubt that in the first few chapters of Acts its author has preserved material from very early sources.' ( - John Drane)
"There is evidence that Mark got his passion narrative from an earlier source that was written before AD 37, just four years after Jesus’ resurrection. These reports from the very front lines of history demolish contentions that Jesus’ resurrection was the result of legendary development that took place in the decades after Jesus’ life."
Kirk MacGregor: "Concerning the date of the creed, virtually all critical scholars agree that Paul received the tradition no later than five years after the crucifixion, with a majority holding that the material was passed on to him when he visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal. 1.18-19), and a minority maintaining that the material was conveyed to him in Damascus via the community in Antioch immediately upon his conversion. This would put the latest date for the creed at AD 35, assuming the truth of the majority view that Jesus’ crucifixion occurred in AD 30 and Paul’s conversion in 32. Remarkably, however, form-critical analysis reveals the existence of two earlier stages in the development of this tradition. Since the creed would have been formulated before Paul received it, the creed in its final form should be dated even earlier than 35. For this reason, even the radical Jesus Seminar dates the tradition no later than AD 33. Taken together, these considerations have led a broad spectrum of scholars from widely divergent schools of thought to identify this creed as eyewitness testimony of those who believe they saw literal appearances of Jesus alive after this death. As the Jewish NT scholar Pinchas Lapide concludes, '[T]his unified piece of tradition which soon was solidified into a formula of faith may be considered as a statement of eyewitnesses for whom the experience of the resurrection became the turning point in their lives.' "
The Gospel of Matthew is structured around five massive teaching segments given by Jesus (possibly the "logia" mentioned by Papias). Around those 5 blocks Matthew consistently and logically develops his theme that Jesus is the Messianic King, the successor to David and Moses. He portrays Jesus as...
- The new Moses (deliverer who rescues people from their sins)
- The new David (king who rules over God’s kingdom)
- The new Abraham (founder of the new chosen people)
- The new Creator (performing the miracle of new creation in people)
- The new Temple (God with us acting to make his people new)
Inside those themes he often references OT Scriptures to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy. It's all quite logically assembled and consistent in its claims.
> he provides different genealogies than in the OT
Genealogies in the ancient world were not as we regard them today: as chronological listings of every generation to trace time. In the ancient world they were to fulfill political or religious agendas, and they often skipped generations to make their point.
> misinterprets Jewish prophecy
Matthew, by his own admission, interprets prophecy to show how Jesus "filled it up" with more meaning (Mt. 1.22). He understanding OT passages as a pattern to be filled out. He takes the patterns and applies them to a new situation, like a coffee cup having something new poured into it. There is no hidden meaning in the OT that Matthew has discovered; rather, the meaning was not in the OT, but Matthew adds new meaning to the prophetic concept. And again, he's very consistent in his use of the OT this way.
> and used the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew version of the OT.
Yep, but the LXX was regarded as a good tool for public use.
> His virgin birth story doesn't even agree with Luke's
They overlap cleanly without contradiction. There are no problems here. They just tell the same story from different perspectives. You and I would report the recent election similarly. We would each tell it differently, but not necessarily contradictorily.
> The virgin birth is never mentioned by Paul, even though he does talk about Jesus's birth.
Yeah, but that's of no consequence. Paul's overarching and repeated concern is the death and resurrection of Jesus. He never even mentions any other events of Jesus's life.
> So because you haven't come across teachings that you like better plus 10 other reasons, he must be God?
That's right. All 11 reasons are what convince me. It's the weight of total evidence, not a singular observation.
> Sex...In the stories he is known for breaking cultural norms and flouting certain religious rules so it doesn't seem too much of a stretch.
Absolutely. He was great at breaking cultural normals and flouting religious trivialities (without ever breaking the law). He respected women, showed compassion for the sick, treated the poor with the same dignity as the rich, etc. But he never did anything that even borders on immoral. That's a different category, and the burden of proof would be on you if you claim that he crossed that line somewhere somehow.
> They are all claims made in the canonical Gospels, this is not evidence.
Of course the canonical Gospels are evidence, unless you're functioning under some kind of a priori bias. But even common sense would tell us Jesus' body was buried, that people knew the location, and that location was vacated on Sunday. Jesus was no common vagrant. This was a significant public and historical event of that weekend, especially for his followers, his detractors (the Jewish leaders), and the local Roman government.
> The accounts don't even agree on what happened at the tomb!
They each tell it from their perspective, but the various accounts are harmonizable without contradiction.
> 1 Cor. 15.3-6...Citation please?
Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler write: "The earliest report of Jesus’ resurrection goes back so close to the event itself that it cannot have been rendered unreliable by legendary development. Scholars have dated the creed of 1 Cor. 15.3-8 to within 2-8 years of Jesus’ resurrection. It is likely that Paul received this material three years after his conversion, when he took a trip to Jerusalem and got it directly from the eyewitnesses Peter and James themselves. ( - Gary Habermas)
"A number of the accounts in Acts 1-5, 10 and 13 also include some creeds that report very early data about Jesus’ death and resurrection. 'The earliest evidence we have for the resurrection almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place. This is the evidence contained in the early sermons in the Acts of the Apostles. … There can be no doubt that in the first few chapters of Acts its author has preserved material from very early sources.' ( - John Drane)
"There is evidence that Mark got his passion narrative from an earlier source that was written before AD 37, just four years after Jesus’ resurrection. These reports from the very front lines of history demolish contentions that Jesus’ resurrection was the result of legendary development that took place in the decades after Jesus’ life."
Kirk MacGregor: "Concerning the date of the creed, virtually all critical scholars agree that Paul received the tradition no later than five years after the crucifixion, with a majority holding that the material was passed on to him when he visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal. 1.18-19), and a minority maintaining that the material was conveyed to him in Damascus via the community in Antioch immediately upon his conversion. This would put the latest date for the creed at AD 35, assuming the truth of the majority view that Jesus’ crucifixion occurred in AD 30 and Paul’s conversion in 32. Remarkably, however, form-critical analysis reveals the existence of two earlier stages in the development of this tradition. Since the creed would have been formulated before Paul received it, the creed in its final form should be dated even earlier than 35. For this reason, even the radical Jesus Seminar dates the tradition no later than AD 33. Taken together, these considerations have led a broad spectrum of scholars from widely divergent schools of thought to identify this creed as eyewitness testimony of those who believe they saw literal appearances of Jesus alive after this death. As the Jewish NT scholar Pinchas Lapide concludes, '[T]his unified piece of tradition which soon was solidified into a formula of faith may be considered as a statement of eyewitnesses for whom the experience of the resurrection became the turning point in their lives.' "
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Did only Jesus do miracles?
by Tune Smith » Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:14 pm
> It's all quite logically assembled and consistent in its claims.
That his thoughts are organized does not make them logical. And this point undermines the case you are making, unless I misunderstand it. If I do, I'm sure you can correct me on it.
From what I understand, you are trying to say that the story is true because "Matthew" (which we will use as a substitute to mean whoever the author(s) of this Gospel are) believes it is true. You still haven't demonstrated how this follows. He wouldn't have included an embarrassing story such as the virgin birth in his Gospel unless he believed it was true. Yet you get to this by contrasting it with the rest of Matthew's Gospel. Yet the items you list would also be ridiculous to Jews (and in fact they were as the vast majority did not buy the case).
Wouldn't the Jews have found the comparison of Jesus (who at best they thought of as an itinerant rabbi and at worst they considered a dangerous radical), to Moses (the leader who broke them out of bondage and led them to a new promised land), David (their archetypal king and hero in the wars against the Phoenicians), Abraham (the patriarch who sired the entire nation), God (this would have been an obvious blasphemy), and the Temple (the center of religious) ridiculous and mythological?
> Genealogies in the ancient world were not as we regard them today: as chronological listings of every generation to trace time. In the ancient world they were to fulfill political or religious agendas, and they often skipped generations to make their point.
So Matthew altered the genealogies to fulfill his religious agenda? I don't think this is a point in favor of his reliability.
> Matthew, by his own admission, interprets prophecy to show how Jesus "filled it up" with more meaning (Mt. 1.22). He understanding OT passages as a pattern to be filled out. He takes the patterns and applies them to a new situation, like a coffee cup having something new poured into it. There is no hidden meaning in the OT that Matthew has discovered; rather, the meaning was not in the OT, but Matthew adds new meaning to the prophetic concept. And again, he's very consistent in his use of the OT this way.
So Matthew admittedly changed the interpretation of the prophecies to something other than they were written for? This is a type of postdiction and again would not be very convincing to a Jewish audience who would presumably be familiar with the prophecies. How would this not look like Matthew was shoehorning Jesus into the OT to the Jewish audience?
> Yep, but the LXX was regarded as a good tool for public use.
Not sure what you mean by "good tool for public use". My point is that if you are writing to a Jewish audience why would you use a Greek translation instead of the original Hebrew? Particularly since the Septuagint has a problematic translation in the very prophetic passage used to justify the the Virgin Birth. Was the Hebrew not available? Did Matthew not know Hebrew?
> They overlap cleanly without contradiction. There are no problems here. They just tell the same story from different perspectives. You and I would report the recent election similarly. We would each tell it differently, but not necessarily contradictorily.
Only if you presuppose that both stories are true. The differences, rationalizations, and omissions are quite striking. In attempting to reconcile them, the believer is forced to create a new gospel that makes little sense. I understand that this is unlikely to sway you as you already believe they are both true. But surely you understand why an outsider would probably not be convinced by this.
> Yeah, but that's of no consequence. Paul's overarching and repeated concern is the death and resurrection of Jesus. He never even mentions any other events of Jesus's life.
So is the Virgin Birth story unimportant? If the events of Jesus's life are not of concern, then why are the Gospels so important as part of Christian Scripture?
> Of course the canonical Gospels are evidence, unless you're functioning under some kind of a priori bias.
I'll answer this in an example at the end of the post.
> But even common sense would tell us Jesus' body was buried, that people knew the location, and that location was vacated on Sunday.
Common sense tells us that people don't rise from the dead.
> Jesus was no common vagrant. This was a significant public and historical event of that weekend, especially for his followers, his detractors (the Jewish leaders), and the local Roman government.
And yet we have precious little information about this event outside of his followers.
> They each tell it from their perspective, but the various accounts are harmonizable without contradiction.
They disagree on who discovered the tomb and what was found there. Again they are only able to be harmonized by creating a new Gospel in the head of the believer.
> Citations
I'm actually glad you brought this topic up, because I learned some new things. Thank you. There are a few points I would like to bring up in regard to this.
1) There is a scholarly consensus that the creed of 1 Cor. 15.3-6 is pre-Pauline. Most scholars think it is 15-20 years after Jesus's death although some, as you have pointed out place it between 2-8 years.
2) Scholars disagree about what conclusions we can draw. It seems safe to say that at least one Christian community in or around Jerusalem had a belief of Jesus's continued existence after death. I was cautioned that there was certainly no unified view of Christianity and that several communities held vehement disagreements about whether there was a resurrection and if so what type (bodily or spirit). The Epistles and various Gospels were attempts by Christians of different stripes to make the point for their version. It was only after a couple of centuries of bitter (and sometimes violent) disputes that a sort of consensus was established.
3) Be careful about citing Norm Geisler. Only this week I have researched a claim of his and found it to be fabricated. I will make a post later this week regarding it.
The broad point is this:
Say that a friend of yours brought you several written accounts of an Indian guru who died and came back to life and the author claimed that this (and other events gleaned from prophecies in the Vedas, Upanishads, and Mahabharata) means he is Brahma. The accounts were written directly after the death of the guru (no time gap) at all, the accounts agree on many significant points. They also include stories of thousands of eyewitnesses to the resurrection. Would you believe this was true? Why or why not?
As far as my other responses, or you working on another reply or are we considering those points resolved?
That his thoughts are organized does not make them logical. And this point undermines the case you are making, unless I misunderstand it. If I do, I'm sure you can correct me on it.
From what I understand, you are trying to say that the story is true because "Matthew" (which we will use as a substitute to mean whoever the author(s) of this Gospel are) believes it is true. You still haven't demonstrated how this follows. He wouldn't have included an embarrassing story such as the virgin birth in his Gospel unless he believed it was true. Yet you get to this by contrasting it with the rest of Matthew's Gospel. Yet the items you list would also be ridiculous to Jews (and in fact they were as the vast majority did not buy the case).
Wouldn't the Jews have found the comparison of Jesus (who at best they thought of as an itinerant rabbi and at worst they considered a dangerous radical), to Moses (the leader who broke them out of bondage and led them to a new promised land), David (their archetypal king and hero in the wars against the Phoenicians), Abraham (the patriarch who sired the entire nation), God (this would have been an obvious blasphemy), and the Temple (the center of religious) ridiculous and mythological?
> Genealogies in the ancient world were not as we regard them today: as chronological listings of every generation to trace time. In the ancient world they were to fulfill political or religious agendas, and they often skipped generations to make their point.
So Matthew altered the genealogies to fulfill his religious agenda? I don't think this is a point in favor of his reliability.
> Matthew, by his own admission, interprets prophecy to show how Jesus "filled it up" with more meaning (Mt. 1.22). He understanding OT passages as a pattern to be filled out. He takes the patterns and applies them to a new situation, like a coffee cup having something new poured into it. There is no hidden meaning in the OT that Matthew has discovered; rather, the meaning was not in the OT, but Matthew adds new meaning to the prophetic concept. And again, he's very consistent in his use of the OT this way.
So Matthew admittedly changed the interpretation of the prophecies to something other than they were written for? This is a type of postdiction and again would not be very convincing to a Jewish audience who would presumably be familiar with the prophecies. How would this not look like Matthew was shoehorning Jesus into the OT to the Jewish audience?
> Yep, but the LXX was regarded as a good tool for public use.
Not sure what you mean by "good tool for public use". My point is that if you are writing to a Jewish audience why would you use a Greek translation instead of the original Hebrew? Particularly since the Septuagint has a problematic translation in the very prophetic passage used to justify the the Virgin Birth. Was the Hebrew not available? Did Matthew not know Hebrew?
> They overlap cleanly without contradiction. There are no problems here. They just tell the same story from different perspectives. You and I would report the recent election similarly. We would each tell it differently, but not necessarily contradictorily.
Only if you presuppose that both stories are true. The differences, rationalizations, and omissions are quite striking. In attempting to reconcile them, the believer is forced to create a new gospel that makes little sense. I understand that this is unlikely to sway you as you already believe they are both true. But surely you understand why an outsider would probably not be convinced by this.
> Yeah, but that's of no consequence. Paul's overarching and repeated concern is the death and resurrection of Jesus. He never even mentions any other events of Jesus's life.
So is the Virgin Birth story unimportant? If the events of Jesus's life are not of concern, then why are the Gospels so important as part of Christian Scripture?
> Of course the canonical Gospels are evidence, unless you're functioning under some kind of a priori bias.
I'll answer this in an example at the end of the post.
> But even common sense would tell us Jesus' body was buried, that people knew the location, and that location was vacated on Sunday.
Common sense tells us that people don't rise from the dead.
> Jesus was no common vagrant. This was a significant public and historical event of that weekend, especially for his followers, his detractors (the Jewish leaders), and the local Roman government.
And yet we have precious little information about this event outside of his followers.
> They each tell it from their perspective, but the various accounts are harmonizable without contradiction.
They disagree on who discovered the tomb and what was found there. Again they are only able to be harmonized by creating a new Gospel in the head of the believer.
> Citations
I'm actually glad you brought this topic up, because I learned some new things. Thank you. There are a few points I would like to bring up in regard to this.
1) There is a scholarly consensus that the creed of 1 Cor. 15.3-6 is pre-Pauline. Most scholars think it is 15-20 years after Jesus's death although some, as you have pointed out place it between 2-8 years.
2) Scholars disagree about what conclusions we can draw. It seems safe to say that at least one Christian community in or around Jerusalem had a belief of Jesus's continued existence after death. I was cautioned that there was certainly no unified view of Christianity and that several communities held vehement disagreements about whether there was a resurrection and if so what type (bodily or spirit). The Epistles and various Gospels were attempts by Christians of different stripes to make the point for their version. It was only after a couple of centuries of bitter (and sometimes violent) disputes that a sort of consensus was established.
3) Be careful about citing Norm Geisler. Only this week I have researched a claim of his and found it to be fabricated. I will make a post later this week regarding it.
The broad point is this:
Say that a friend of yours brought you several written accounts of an Indian guru who died and came back to life and the author claimed that this (and other events gleaned from prophecies in the Vedas, Upanishads, and Mahabharata) means he is Brahma. The accounts were written directly after the death of the guru (no time gap) at all, the accounts agree on many significant points. They also include stories of thousands of eyewitnesses to the resurrection. Would you believe this was true? Why or why not?
As far as my other responses, or you working on another reply or are we considering those points resolved?
- Tune Smith
Re: Did only Jesus do miracles?
by jimwalton » Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:54 am
> That his thoughts are organized does not make them logical.
Agreed, but they are logical. He presses his case from introduction "Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" to conclusion (upping the ante considerably): "All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me..." He builds his thesis on recognition of Jesus by the Gentile nations (starting with the magi and ending with "go and make disciples of all nations"), proof of Jesus's identity to the Jews, etc. etc. I don't want to bore you with a wall of text, because there is much else to discuss. He makes a logical case for his agenda.
> the story is true because "Matthew"... believes it is true.
You have this backwards. Matthew believes it's true because it is true. He would never include something like this to convince. It's problematic to his agenda from every turn. But he is convinced it's true, and therefore tells it, regardless of the consequences that will inevitably be leveraged against him for it.
> Wouldn't the Jews have found the comparison of Jesus...to Moses..., David..., Abraham..., and the Temple ... ridiculous and mythological?
No, they would have considered them blasphemy, a far more consequential accusation, which is exactly what we see (Mt. 9.34; (12.14), 12.24; (13.57); 21.38-46; and especially 26.65-66).
> So Matthew altered the genealogies to fulfill his religious agenda? I don't think this is a point in favor of his reliability.
He didn't alter them, but was only selective in which generations he included (in other words, it's not complete). His point is that Jesus is the son of David and the son of Abraham. He arranges his genealogy into 3 groups of 14 names each. There are no numerals in Hebrew; they use letters as numbers ( A = 1, B = 2, etc.). The letters of David's name add up to 14. Matthew underscores Jesus's divine nature and his relationship to David by making his genealogy 3 groups of 14. To do so he has to skip some generations.
> Not sure what you mean by "good tool for public use".
Many centuries ago most people didn't read Greek or Hebrew, so they used the King James Bible as a good tool for public use. The LXX functioned in the same way. It was a commoner's access to the Holy Scriptures.
> My point is that if you are writing to a Jewish audience why would you use a Greek translation instead of the original Hebrew?
Most Jews of the day spoke Aramaic. They would have known a certain amount of Hebrew for Torah studies, and a certain amount of Greek for commerce. By the time Matthew was written (anywhere from about AD 65-85), Greek was more understood by the Jewish people than Hebrew.
> The differences, rationalizations, and omissions are quite striking. In attempting to reconcile them, the believer is forced to create a new gospel that makes little sense.
Matthew and Luke write from different theological purposes. Matthew shows Jesus to be the fulfillment of 5 key Old Testament prophecies, and Luke uses the birth narrative to contrast the births of John the Baptist and Jesus.
> So is the Virgin Birth story unimportant? If the events of Jesus's life are not of concern, then why are the Gospels so important as part of Christian Scripture?
In a sense it's unimportant, and in a sense it's not. Mark and John don't even bother with it because it doesn't fit into their theme. Paul never references it, because the crucifixion and resurrection are more important to his point about salvation by grace through faith. The events of Jesus's life are of concern, but the primary pieces are this: (1) Jesus was God in the flesh, (2) Jesus died for our sins, (3) Jesus rose from the dead.
> Common sense tells us that people don't rise from the dead.
That's exactly the point. Any idiot knows people don't come back from the dead. That's what makes his resurrection so discussion worthy. The people were the same as us. Peter didn't believe—he ran to the tomb. He only believed when he saw Jesus. Paul didn't believe—he persecuted the Church. He only believed when he saw Jesus. The Corinthians didn't believe—that's why Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15. The resurrection of Jesus was an intellectual obstacle to everybody who heard it (1 Cor. 1.18-25). But they all had evidence that it actually happened, and it changed their lives.
> And yet we have precious little information about this event outside of his followers.
It would make sense that those who saw him believed. We would think people were morons if they saw the risen Christ and didn't become followers. Common sense tells us that people follow indisputable evidence.
> The 1 Corinthians 15 creed
There are some problems with some of your scholars. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in about 54-55, within 25 years of Jesus's death (which took place possibly around AD 30). But notice what he says about the creed. Paul was not in Jerusalem very often. Paul was converted to Christianity only a number of months after Jesus's death (around AD 32, Acts 9). He specifically says he was in Jerusalem about 3 years after his conversion (Gal. 1.18-19), which would be in around AD 35, and he received this creed, which was already in a polished form. That means the creed needs be dated before 35, which puts it around, let's say, AD 33.
In addition, a number of the accounts in Acts 1-5, 10 and 13 also include very early data about Jesus's death and resurrection (1.23; 2.15-36; 3.12-15; 4.10; etc.).
> It seems safe to say that at least one Christian community in or around Jerusalem had a belief of Jesus's continued existence after death. I was cautioned that there was certainly no unified view of Christianity and that several communities held vehement disagreements about whether there was a resurrection and if so what type (bodily or spirit). The Epistles and various Gospels were attempts by Christians of different stripes to make the point for their version. It was only after a couple of centuries of bitter (and sometimes violent) disputes that a sort of consensus was established.
You're right that there were vehement disagreements, but the testimony of the apostles and Paul is firm: Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and so we also can expect a bodily resurrection at the end of life. As far the Epistles and the Gospels to make a point of their version, yes, because according to the eyewitness accounts and the most reliable evidence, their version was the true one. We all know from this past election that a whole lot of false reports (and therefore false conclusions) circulate from the media to the population. We have to sort out what's true, and hopefully history will remember the truth about things, not the propaganda.
Agreed, but they are logical. He presses his case from introduction "Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" to conclusion (upping the ante considerably): "All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me..." He builds his thesis on recognition of Jesus by the Gentile nations (starting with the magi and ending with "go and make disciples of all nations"), proof of Jesus's identity to the Jews, etc. etc. I don't want to bore you with a wall of text, because there is much else to discuss. He makes a logical case for his agenda.
> the story is true because "Matthew"... believes it is true.
You have this backwards. Matthew believes it's true because it is true. He would never include something like this to convince. It's problematic to his agenda from every turn. But he is convinced it's true, and therefore tells it, regardless of the consequences that will inevitably be leveraged against him for it.
> Wouldn't the Jews have found the comparison of Jesus...to Moses..., David..., Abraham..., and the Temple ... ridiculous and mythological?
No, they would have considered them blasphemy, a far more consequential accusation, which is exactly what we see (Mt. 9.34; (12.14), 12.24; (13.57); 21.38-46; and especially 26.65-66).
> So Matthew altered the genealogies to fulfill his religious agenda? I don't think this is a point in favor of his reliability.
He didn't alter them, but was only selective in which generations he included (in other words, it's not complete). His point is that Jesus is the son of David and the son of Abraham. He arranges his genealogy into 3 groups of 14 names each. There are no numerals in Hebrew; they use letters as numbers ( A = 1, B = 2, etc.). The letters of David's name add up to 14. Matthew underscores Jesus's divine nature and his relationship to David by making his genealogy 3 groups of 14. To do so he has to skip some generations.
> Not sure what you mean by "good tool for public use".
Many centuries ago most people didn't read Greek or Hebrew, so they used the King James Bible as a good tool for public use. The LXX functioned in the same way. It was a commoner's access to the Holy Scriptures.
> My point is that if you are writing to a Jewish audience why would you use a Greek translation instead of the original Hebrew?
Most Jews of the day spoke Aramaic. They would have known a certain amount of Hebrew for Torah studies, and a certain amount of Greek for commerce. By the time Matthew was written (anywhere from about AD 65-85), Greek was more understood by the Jewish people than Hebrew.
> The differences, rationalizations, and omissions are quite striking. In attempting to reconcile them, the believer is forced to create a new gospel that makes little sense.
Matthew and Luke write from different theological purposes. Matthew shows Jesus to be the fulfillment of 5 key Old Testament prophecies, and Luke uses the birth narrative to contrast the births of John the Baptist and Jesus.
> So is the Virgin Birth story unimportant? If the events of Jesus's life are not of concern, then why are the Gospels so important as part of Christian Scripture?
In a sense it's unimportant, and in a sense it's not. Mark and John don't even bother with it because it doesn't fit into their theme. Paul never references it, because the crucifixion and resurrection are more important to his point about salvation by grace through faith. The events of Jesus's life are of concern, but the primary pieces are this: (1) Jesus was God in the flesh, (2) Jesus died for our sins, (3) Jesus rose from the dead.
> Common sense tells us that people don't rise from the dead.
That's exactly the point. Any idiot knows people don't come back from the dead. That's what makes his resurrection so discussion worthy. The people were the same as us. Peter didn't believe—he ran to the tomb. He only believed when he saw Jesus. Paul didn't believe—he persecuted the Church. He only believed when he saw Jesus. The Corinthians didn't believe—that's why Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15. The resurrection of Jesus was an intellectual obstacle to everybody who heard it (1 Cor. 1.18-25). But they all had evidence that it actually happened, and it changed their lives.
> And yet we have precious little information about this event outside of his followers.
It would make sense that those who saw him believed. We would think people were morons if they saw the risen Christ and didn't become followers. Common sense tells us that people follow indisputable evidence.
> The 1 Corinthians 15 creed
There are some problems with some of your scholars. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in about 54-55, within 25 years of Jesus's death (which took place possibly around AD 30). But notice what he says about the creed. Paul was not in Jerusalem very often. Paul was converted to Christianity only a number of months after Jesus's death (around AD 32, Acts 9). He specifically says he was in Jerusalem about 3 years after his conversion (Gal. 1.18-19), which would be in around AD 35, and he received this creed, which was already in a polished form. That means the creed needs be dated before 35, which puts it around, let's say, AD 33.
In addition, a number of the accounts in Acts 1-5, 10 and 13 also include very early data about Jesus's death and resurrection (1.23; 2.15-36; 3.12-15; 4.10; etc.).
> It seems safe to say that at least one Christian community in or around Jerusalem had a belief of Jesus's continued existence after death. I was cautioned that there was certainly no unified view of Christianity and that several communities held vehement disagreements about whether there was a resurrection and if so what type (bodily or spirit). The Epistles and various Gospels were attempts by Christians of different stripes to make the point for their version. It was only after a couple of centuries of bitter (and sometimes violent) disputes that a sort of consensus was established.
You're right that there were vehement disagreements, but the testimony of the apostles and Paul is firm: Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and so we also can expect a bodily resurrection at the end of life. As far the Epistles and the Gospels to make a point of their version, yes, because according to the eyewitness accounts and the most reliable evidence, their version was the true one. We all know from this past election that a whole lot of false reports (and therefore false conclusions) circulate from the media to the population. We have to sort out what's true, and hopefully history will remember the truth about things, not the propaganda.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:54 am.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
14 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest