Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[Tinker Grey]

My favorite example of stretching here is Matthew's use of Hosea 11:1 in Mt. 2:15.

Somehow Israel is a type of Christ in verse 1 while verse 2 of Hosea 11 has Israel (Christ) sacrificing to idols! How is verse 1 a reference to Christ while verse 2 is not.

 

[1611AV]

As you wish. Let's start with some simple history:

Jesus grew up and did most of his teaching out of Nazareth, yet, according to two Gospel writers, was born in Bethlehem.

Now, how did that happen? First off, let's remember that the traditional story we've all heard from our school Christmas plays are actually clumsy amalgams of Matthew and Luke's accounts. These two are the only ones to address Jesus' birth, and both felt the need to explain the Bethlehem/Nazareth issue.

Matthew's Gospel has Mary and Joseph already living in Bethlehem, so there's no problem there; the trick is getting them to Nazareth, flying in the face of all logic, after Jesus' birth.

I say "flying in the face of all logic" because Bethlehem was (it you want to think of it this way) practically a suburb of Jerusalem, whereas Nazareth was in the province of Galilee, out in the boonies, as it were. People don't pack up and move without good reason, and any kind of moving would've been towards Jerusalem, where the policital, social, and financial opportunities were, not away from it, into poverty and obscurity. Remember, people back in the day didn't commute to work.

Matthew needs a darn good reason for the Jesus family to hit the road, and he finds one by rifling through the Old Testament -- Jesus and his family need to go into hiding because Herod, having heard of the birth of a new King, orders every newborn male child be put to death.

Now where have we heard that story before? More importantly, where would the Jews have heard that story before?

That's right -- It's Exodus II: The Sequel. Matthew is making a point of Jesus' greatness to his Jewish audience by parallelling him with their greatest hero: Moses.

So Joseph sneaks his family out, leads them to Egypt where they will be safe, and eventually relocates to Nazareth once the heat is off, so to speak.

Hmmm -- this just gets better and better -- What does Matthew tell us about Joseph?

1. He had a father named Jacob
2. God communicated with him (only, it seems) through dreams (Matt. 1:20, 2:13, 2:19, and 2:22)
3. He rescues Jesus from certain death by taking him down into Egypt.

If you're a Jew, you should be getting a serious case of deja vu right about now. This is the Joseph of Genesis 37-50, so here we have Matthew doing it again: making the point of Jesus' greatness by having his story mirror another Jewish hero.

You'll notice that this is pretty much Matthew's signature style -- everything Jesus does, some OT hero or prophet did it first.

My point? They say history repeats itself, but never so completely or conveniently -- not unless someone's writing it that way. Either God contrived to micromanage (heck, nanomanage) human history for no reason other than to have these stories balance out the way they do, or someone's cooking the books.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe the simpler possibility.

Let me take a brief pause, but I assure you; we've barely gotten our feet wet. Care to go deeper?

OK, first off, lets keep this in perspective. I am willing to discuss this with you but, remember, I am a believer and see it Gods way. You are a non believer and do not have spiritual understanding of a spiritual book. Do not take that as a insult but rather fact.

I will show you by the word of God and not my own interpretation of how there is no contradiction and how Jesus is indeed the True Messiah that was written in the OT and rejected by the nation of Israel. (The Jews).

Before we go deeper, lets examine the Scriptures and see what the OT Jews would have seen regarding Jesus. (The same Jesus of the NT).

I will need some time to respond because I will be offline for a few hours or so. I will also want time to examine the Scriptures myself regarding your post.

I would also like you to be able to back up your statements with Scripture so we are comparing Scripture with Scripture.

There is much to discuss.

 

[TheReasoner]

I am a actual Jew.

aNNNN
You are aNNNNN actual Jew

 

[badtim]

I am a actual Jew.

hahaha i'm waiting to hear the explanation of this whopper.

 

[1611AV]

aNNNN
You are aNNNNN actual Jew

Yup

hahaha i'm waiting to hear the explanation of this whopper.

In time. gotta run for now. Dinner time and I like Big Macs.

 

[Nathan Poe]

OK, first off, lets keep this in perspective. I am willing to discuss this with you but, remember, I am a believer and see it Gods way.

God's way, or your own? Have a care not to confuse/conflate the two.

You are a non believer and do not have spiritual understanding of a spiritual book. Do not take that as a insult but rather fact.

I'm more inclined to take it as a copout -- The emperor wore clothing of the finest silks, enchanted so that fools could not see it. Who dares tell the emperor he's naked?

If your "spiritual understanding" prevents you from seeing the plain truth in front of you, is it a blessing or a curse?

I will show you by the word of God and not my own interpretation of how there is no contradiction and how Jesus is indeed the True Messiah that was written in the OT and rejected by the nation of Israel. (The Jews).

I eagerly await it -- remember, by your own rules, no interpretations are allowed. How you intend to do that should prove interesting, to say the least.

Before we go deeper, lets examine the Scriptures and see what the OT Jews would have seen regarding Jesus. (The same Jesus of the NT).

Examining the Scriptures only tells us what the NT Jews (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) wrote about him. I suppose it will have to suffice.

I will need some time to respond because I will be offline for a few hours or so. I will also want time to examine the Scriptures myself regarding your post.

Take all the time you need -- you'll find those Scriptures are exactly as I said they are.

I would also like you to be able to back up your statements with Scripture so we are comparing Scripture with Scripture.

In case you haven't noticed, I already have -- is not Herod's order almost identical to Pharaoh's? Does not the NT Joseph's actions bear an uncanny resemblance to The OT Joseph's?

You want me to post individual verses in order to compare minutiae to minutiae -- I say look at the bigger picture; see the forest, not just the trees.

There is much to discuss.

Indeed -- just wait until we get into Luke's account of the birth story; that one might really fry your noodle.


ETA: Speaking of Joseph, whatever becomes of him after the birth stories? He seems to vanish from Jesus' life entirely.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yup

In time. gotta run for now. Dinner time and I like Big Macs.

No cheese, I hope -- wouldn't be kosher.

 

[Jazer]

ETA: Speaking of Joseph, whatever becomes of him after the birth stories? He seems to vanish from Jesus' life entirely.

According to the Catholic Church, Joseph was a widower with five children and was already pretty old. James was his youngest son and Mary raised Jesus and James together. So Joseph died fairly early in the story. Mary was very young and was only around 12 years old when she had Jesus. It is actually a very interesting story, you should read the book sometime. They believe that Mary maintained her virginity all her life. She dedicated her life onto God. There was nothing man could do to change that. Luke spent a lot of time with Mary to learn what he could from her, so we read a lot of about her in Luke's books.

 

[badtim]

Jazer, source please. Throughout 13 years of catholic school education, and many more years of various researches, I have never once seen this claim made as a catholic belief.

 

[Nathan Poe]

According to the Catholic Church, Joseph was a widower with five children and was already pretty old.

It's unfortunate that there's absolutely nothing in the Bible itself to back that up.

James was his youngest son and Mary raised Jesus and James together. So Joseph died fairly early in the story.

Again, no mention -- Jesus' (earthly) father is taken out of the story without so much as a footnote.

Mary was very young and was only around 12 years old when she had Jesus. It is actually a very interesting story, you should read the book sometime.

I think I've heard bits and pieces of it before.

They believe that Mary maintained her virginity all her life. She dedicated her life onto God. There was nothing man could do to change that. Luke spent a lot of time with Mary to learn what he could from her, so we read a lot of about her in Luke's books.

And here's the problem with magical thinking -- the need to twist the truth around in knots in order to get the desired result is matched only by the ease of it.

We know from Scripture that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters (Mark 6:3), But since Church tradition -- not the Bible, mind you -- is so in love with the idea of Mary being a virgin, they go to outlandish lengths in order to perpetuate the myth (I could raise a few questions about the virgin birth prophecy, but that'll be for another time) that they'll add whatever they need to the Bible.

There's a far simpler explanation, but magical thinking forbids even considering it.

 

[rjc34]

Let me take a brief pause, but I assure you; we've barely gotten our feet wet. Care to go deeper?

Man, this stuff is fantastic! Let's see how deep into the rabbit's hole he's willing to go. He's already erected his defenses with the 'you don't have a spiritual interpretation, and apparently he personally knows god's word.

It's probably been answered before, but I'm curious as to which Jesus hypothesis camp you are from?

 

[dad]

It would help if one had things like evidence and rational supposition, just a thought.

That is easy....once you have a point to attack.....

 

[dad]

Interesting that you consider the Bible to be a "tail."

I've always thoght of it more as "tales," myself.

Right. I think most that know your posts would gather as much. You consider the bible false...so?

 

[rjc34]

That is easy....once you have a point to attack.....

That was completely Non Sequitur.

 

[rjc34]

You consider the bible false...so?

That's the default position. The burden of proof is on you to show that it's true.

You consider the Qu'ran false...so?

 

[Belk]

That is easy....once you have a point to attack.....

Apparently not since I have yet to see a creationist come on these boards and lay out a clear concise view of creationism with supporting evidence. Apparently the first step in supporting "The Truth"(tm) is to attack evolution.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Man, this stuff is fantastic! Let's see how deep into the rabbit's hole he's willing to go. He's already erected his defenses with the 'you don't have a spiritual interpretation, and apparently he personally knows god's word.

Yes, I've noticed that he's already got his eyes on the emergency exit -- at any time, he can just say, "Well you're not a believer, so nothing you say counts! LALALALALALA I can't hear you!"

It's cheap, cowardly, and completely typical from the literalists -- dismiss the man instead of address the Biblical facts. But he hasn't actually done it, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. The fact that he's already warming it up tells me that I've already showed him some unpleasant things he's uncomfortable dealing with, and didn't have a ready-made response to -- hence the pause.

I too am curious to see how far down the rabbit hole this goes -- I'm ready to take it all the way to Wonderland and back.

It's probably been answered before, but I'm curious as to which Jesus hypothesis camp you are from?

I consider it the "mythic hero" camp. Jesus was, no question, the most influential person in human history, and the Jews, trying to explain his greatness, told his story by wrapping it in the heroic myths of their religion.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's the default position. The burden of proof is on you to show that it's true.

And not to boast or anything, but I think I'm doing a decent job defending the "default" position.

 

[1611AV]

As you wish. Let's start with some simple history:

OK

Jesus grew up and did most of his teaching out of Nazareth, yet, according to two Gospel writers, was born in Bethlehem.

Yes, the Bible is clear, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I grew up in Florida but was born in NY. Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in BETHLEHEM of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Now, how did that happen?

Holy Ghost

First off, let's remember that the traditional story we've all heard from our school Christmas plays are actually clumsy amalgams of Matthew and Luke's accounts. These two are the only ones to address Jesus' birth, and both felt the need to explain the Bethlehem/Nazareth issue.

The traditional story is not the Truth that is found in the Word of God. Also, what is "the issue"???

Matthew's Gospel has Mary and Joseph already living in Bethlehem, so there's no problem there; the trick is getting them to Nazareth, flying in the face of all logic, after Jesus' birth.

Where in the Word of God do you see Mary and Joseph already living in Bethlehem?

I say "flying in the face of all logic" because Bethlehem was (it you want to think of it this way) practically a suburb of Jerusalem, whereas Nazareth was in the province of Galilee, out in the boonies, as it were. People don't pack up and move without good reason, and any kind of moving would've been towards Jerusalem, where the policital, social, and financial opportunities were, not away from it, into poverty and obscurity. Remember, people back in the day didn't commute to work.

Matthew needs a darn good reason for the Jesus family to hit the road, and he finds one by rifling through the Old Testament -- Jesus and his family need to go into hiding because Herod, having heard of the birth of a new King, orders every newborn male child be put to death.

I see nothing here. If you have a point, make it more clear.

Now where have we heard that story before? More importantly, where would the Jews have heard that story before?

What story exactly?

That's right -- It's Exodus II: The Sequel. Matthew is making a point of Jesus' greatness to his Jewish audience by parallelling him with their greatest hero: Moses.

How?

So Joseph sneaks his family out, leads them to Egypt where they will be safe, and eventually relocates to Nazareth once the heat is off, so to speak.

Ok

Hmmm -- this just gets better and better -- What does Matthew tell us about Joseph?

1. He had a father named Jacob
2. God communicated with him (only, it seems) through dreams (Matt. 1:20, 2:13, 2:19, and 2:22)
3. He rescues Jesus from certain death by taking him down into Egypt.

If you're a Jew, you should be getting a serious case of deja vu right about now. This is the Joseph of Genesis 37-50, so here we have Matthew doing it again: making the point of Jesus' greatness by having his story mirror another Jewish hero.

You'll notice that this is pretty much Matthew's signature style -- everything Jesus does, some OT hero or prophet did it first.

My point? They say history repeats itself, but never so completely or conveniently -- not unless someone's writing it that way. Either God contrived to micromanage (heck, nanomanage) human history for no reason other than to have these stories balance out the way they do, or someone's cooking the books.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe the simpler possibility.

Let me take a brief pause, but I assure you; we've barely gotten our feet wet. Care to go deeper?

And like I told you earlier, It is a spiritual book. And within the Word of God, there is always a picture of whats to come. Adam for instance is a type of Jesus. As are the following:

Abraham - The Father of the Faith
Isaac - The Sacrificed Son
Joseph - The Suffering Servant
Moses - The Deliverer
Jonathon - The Faithful Friend
David - The King in Exile
Solomon - The Millennial Reign
Nehemiah - The Rebuilder of our Salvation

I read some of your posts since I last posted you, I do not fear anything you have said neither has it troubled me. You simply have not offered anything of interest or specific as of yet.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In case anyone's interested, I'm ready to discuss the Bethlehem myth according to Luke, now.

Luke's got the same problem Matthew has: Jesus lives in Nazareth, but needs to be born in Bethlehem. Since Luke's not trying to mirror OT heroes like Matthew is, he comes up with a completely different solution.

Luke 2:1-5
[1] And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
[2] (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
[3] And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
[4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)
[5] To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.


Whoa, Mama -- let's count the historical problems in these five verses alone.

1. The Romans were pretty meticulous record-keepers, yet no record of any such decree from Agustus exists.
2. The Roman records on Cyrenius are pretty solid, however -- he became governor of Syria around the end of AD 6. But Jesus was born when Herod was King (Luke 1:5) which couldn't have been after 4 BC. New math?
3. The world should be taxed? The entire Roman empire, all at once? Romans didn't do it that way -- taxes were collected province by province, for reasons which should be blindingly obvious: trying to do the whole thing at once would've overwhelmed the Roman bureacracy and brought the whole government to a screeching halt.
4. Judaea became a Roman province around AD 6, Iudaea, but that province did not include Galilee -- if there was such a census or tax, Joseph, a Galilean, was not subject to it. He made the trip for nothing.
5. Each to their own city? Did Augustus actually expect every single subject and citizen of the empire to drop everything and make the trip for this? never mind the government; the empire itself would fall apart!
6. Since when does any census or taxation require a person to go back to the place of your birth? The census, especially for purposes of taxation, isn't about where you're from, but about where you are. It's a completely unnecessary literary ploy to get Joseph and his family on the road.
7. Luke has to return to Bethlehem because he is a descendant of David. Luke 3:23-38 names 41 generations from David to Joseph -- 41! Think of how many heirs and descendants would be produced over 41 generations -- now multiply that number when you consider that David himself had several wives, concubines, and mistresses that we know of through the Bible. How many people with a Davidic claim would be descending on O little town of Bethlehem? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Kind of explains why there was no room at the inn, doesn't it?
8. Nazareth is about 100 miles or so from Bethlehem --not only is that 100 miles through scorching desert (making daytime travel unsafe and unwise) and pitch-black night (making nighttime travel unsafe and unwise), but to get there, you'd have to travel through Samaria -- making any travel for a Jew unsafe and unwise. Joseph not only made this trek (about 7-10 days on foot or donkey) for no reason (see point 4) but thought it was a good idea to bring his 9-month pregnant wife along! Smooth move, Joseph.
9. As if points 4 and 8 don't qualify Joseph for the "Bonehead of the Century" award, let's not forget that the Roman census did not include women -- only men. If Joseph had no reason to go to Bethlehem, then Mary had even less reason to go.

So really, the only way any of this can be true is if the entire Roman Empire had gone completely insane, and Joseph was the biggest idiot to ever walk the Earth.

Sorry, I choose not to belive either of those, let alone both.