Matthew deliberately manipulates OT data with an agenda!

[lucaspa]

You still didn't address my question.
How can you differentiate other myths in the Bible and say that Jesus' resurrection is not a myth?

Let me reinforce ebia here. His answers to this are very good and you should pay close attention.

Also consider that Josephus mentions 4 other Messiahs in 1st century Palestine and there was another one in the early 2nd century. Have you ever heard of any of them? Wonder why not?

Because they were all killed by the Romans (they were leading rebellions and the Romans either killed them in battle or captured them and executed them) and their followers stopped the claim. Many of the followers transferred their allegience to a new claimant to be Messiah.

So, why are the disciples different? Quite frankly, the only hypothesis that fits the data is that Jesus was resurrected. Considering the impoverished lives they all lived, with all of them meeting violent ends, it's not feasible that they would have done this for a conscious lie. One of them would have recanted and spilled the story (in some cases in exchange for their life), and the authorities would have used it and written it down.

Ebia has a great point with the women witnesses. There are reasons not to put them in, but there they are as the major witnesses to the empty tomb and resurrection.

 

[_JJM]

People assign ineptitude to the writer of Matthew in more ways than this. If you approach the Gospels with the fleshly understanding, you don't get past page 1 before you find your show-stopper. The mysteries of the details in the writing is yet another example of how God hides the truth from those who look for it with eyes of the flesh, rather than eyes of the heart. Apparently God has decided to remain elusive to the fleshly reasoning, but has rather weaved the truths of Himself into mysterious writings of antiquity, so that a man must reckon it as truth by the heart, and not by the flesh. That the Gospel truth is shrouded to those who seek it in the flesh is in keeping with His style:

Matthew 13:15
For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

Matthew follows the legal Jewish system in giving the genealogy of the father even though Joseph was father only by adoption. Matthew's purpose in recording the genealogy was twofold: 1) to demonstrate continuity between the Israel of the OT and Jesus; 2) to demonstrate Jesus' royal lineage (Son of David) and His link with the founder of the Jewish race (Son of Abraham).

 

[juvenissun]

This is a really problematic issue because even the context is evidence that this was very likely done deliberately by Matthew, and we will see why.

We are all familiar with the 'begats' in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. You can go and read them again for yourself:


Matthew 1:7-11 (King James Version)

7 "And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;"
8 "And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;"
9 "And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;"
10 "And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;"
11 "And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:"


This is all fine and dandy, but if you go to the OT you can actually find this same genealogy in the first book of Chronicles. So, let's check it out and see if Matthew is true to his word.

First, we are talking about the history of Jewish kingdom. The chronology which has been put on the history book is not subject to the true or false debate. Matthew is not that ignorant and not knowing the history of his nation.

So, the concern is not on the accuracy, but on the interpretation of history. If you want to use the discrepancy between Matthew and Chronicles to disprove the accuracy of the Biblical record, then you are barking up the wrong tree.

Matthew "wants" to make the 14-14-14 pattern. However, there are 18 kings in the history of Judah. The question is then: which 4 to cut. If you were in the shoes of Matthew, are you able to make a wise interpretation/decision as he made? Matthew is not ignorant. On the contrary, Matthew is very smart.

Here is the quote from the Matthew-Henry Commentary on this issue:

"In the pedigree of the kings of Judah, between Joram and Ozias (v. 8), there are three left out, namely, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah; and therefore when it is said, Joram begat Ozias, it is meant, according to the usage of the Hebrew tongue, that Ozias was lineally descended from him, as it is said to Hezekiah that the sons which he should beget should be carried to Babylon, whereas they were removed several generations from him. It was not through mistake or forgetfulness that these three were omitted, but, probably, they were omitted in the genealogical tables that the evangelist consulted, which yet were admitted as authentic. Some give this reason for it:—It being Matthew’s design, for the sake of memory, to reduce the number of Christ’s ancestors to three fourteens, it was requisite that in this period three should be left out, and none more fit than they who were the immediate progeny of cursed Athaliah, who introduced the idolatry of Ahab into the house of David, for which this brand is set upon the family and the iniquity thus visited to the third and fourth generation. Two of these three were apostates; and such God commonly sets a mark of his displeasure upon in this world: they all three had their heads brought to the grave with blood."

 

[sb81]

No CLEAR contradiction? Can you explain what's not clear?
Your only rebuttal is your theory of these being two different genealogies.
Can you elaborate a little more about your theory to provide supportive explanations, please?
I really wonder if any of your fellow christians believe your theory is even plausible.

You assume Matthew is talking about the same genealogy and that he was trying to deceive people into believing it to make some kind of point.

Notice the "assume" part? Where is this clear and cut error or contradiction and deception? It's all in your imagination. "Worst case scenario" he was using it to make a point in his story.

As for my "theory" I was simply saying you don't even know if he was talking about the same exact genealogy. Obviously he is talking about the line of David, but it's possible they went down a different branch at some point.

Again, it is far more valid than your "theory" that Matthew is trying to deceive people, many who would know the Bible very well and would easily call him on it, and that this is some kind of "big problem."

Where does it say that in the Bible? I mean, that God would permit confused material to be in the Bible with the purpose of testing the believers?

Where does it talk about God testing the faith of people in the Bible? The first occurrence is in Genesis in the last in Revelation with numerous occurrences in between.

 

[drich0150]

This is a really problematic issue because even the context is evidence that this was very likely done deliberately by Matthew, and we will see why.

We are all familiar with the 'begats' in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. You can go and read them again for yourself:


Matthew 1:7-11 (King James Version)

7 "And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;"
8 "And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;"
9 "And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;"
10 "And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;"
11 "And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:"


This is all fine and dandy, but if you go to the OT you can actually find this same genealogy in the first book of Chronicles. So, let's check it out and see if Matthew is true to his word.


1 Chronicles 3:10-16 (King James Version)

10 "And Solomon's son was Rehoboam, Abia his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son,"
11 "Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son,"
12 "Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son,"
13 "Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son,"
14 "Amon his son, Josiah his son."
15 "And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum."
16 "And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son."


Uh-oh... We've got a problem here. Matthew is omitting three generations (names) after Joram and another one after Josiah!
Why would Matthew do that? Didn't he have access to the Old Testament? Well, that should be obvious because of the very fact that he is writing this genealogy. So, why on earth would he omit these 4 names? Was it an accident or was there an ulterior motive?

Well, we cannot be 100% sure but Matthew himself gives us a very telling hint of what probably was going on, in the very next verse:


Matthew 1:17 (King James Version)

"So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."

Hmmm... Three blocks of 14 generations, eh? So the number 14 does indeed have great significance for Matthew. So it's not at all crazy to think that when he found more generations in Chronicles that there was "supposed" to be, he simply omitted them!

So, this is not only another error/contradiction you find in the Bible, but this was probably done deliberately with the purpose of deceiving the readers!!

I don't know about you but this is quite shocking coming from a book that is supposed to be the 'Word of God', it doesn't matter from what point of view you look at it.

I see the responses others have made, and i know that was the desired effect, but truthfully I don't see how this changes anything?

Do you think you or whom ever you took this observation from was the first to notice this since the book of Mt was first written? What of the scribes who hand wrote copy after copy of the bible?

If the bible was meant to read like a text book then it would, if not by the hand of God, by someone in it's past. the point being You, i and everyone else gets to see the man behind the curtain, (The flaw nature of those God choose to work through) that being the case we get to make our own judgments.

Mine being the bible was not to be this inerrant book of God. Because only God is perfect. if the Bible was perfect then it would stand to reason the bible was God, and if that were the case the bible demand our worship as a God. As it is the bible is a tool. And, like any tool it will be used how ever the person who wields it wishes to use it. So for all who seek God the bible provides a way for us to do so, and for those who wish to even doubt God's very existence the very same bible can be used.

What's next? will you expose Paul as being "Chief amongst sinners?"

 

[98cwitr]

Just read this

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"...Not only were these three kings especially wicked, violently destroyed by the will of God,[31] they were the cursed line of Ahab through his daughter Athaliah to the third and fourth generation.[32] Thus Matthew felt justified in omitting them, with an eye toward forming his second tesseradecad.[33]"

According to the texts...Mary and Joe were distance cousins too...ugh....

 

[skepticlogician]

You assume Matthew is talking about the same genealogy and that he was trying to deceive people into believing it to make some kind of point.

OK, let's forget for a second about the idea that Matthew is trying to deceive anyone.
You are saying that he may not be talking about the same genealogy. OK, what makes you think that? Have you read both accounts? They are exactly the same genealogy, except the omitted names. C'mon, this is so clear, I can't believe you can't see that. If not, I repeat, show me your evidence that supports that Matthew is not talking about the same genealogy.

As for my "theory" I was simply saying you don't even know if he was talking about the same exact genealogy. Obviously he is talking about the line of David, but it's possible they went down a different branch at some point.

Will you please take a look at both accounts and tell me where do these supposedly different lines separate?

Again, it is far more valid than your "theory" that Matthew is trying to deceive people, many who would know the Bible very well and would easily call him on it, and that this is some kind of "big problem."

There are two issues here, let's not mix them please.
One is that Matthew references to an Old Testament genealogy in an incomplete way, which is very obvious.
And secondly, I propose that is very possible that Matthew did this knowingly and deliberately.
I can accept that the second point is my very own interpretation, and you can criticize my second view all you want, but you cannot pretend to refute my first point just by criticizing my second point. This is so basic and obvious.

Where does it talk about God testing the faith of people in the Bible? The first occurrence is in Genesis in the last in Revelation with numerous occurrences in between.

No, don't try to twist the words of my question. I didn't ask 'where does it talk about God testing the faith of people', I asked you 'Where does it say that God would permit confused material to be in the Bible with the purpose of testing the believers?'
Will you please give it a second try?

 

[sb81]

OK, let's forget for a second about the idea that Matthew is trying to deceive anyone.
You are saying that he may not be talking about the same genealogy. OK, what makes you think that? Have you read both accounts? They are exactly the same genealogy, except the omitted names. C'mon, this is so clear, I can't believe you can't see that. If not, I repeat, show me your evidence that supports that Matthew is not talking about the same genealogy.

I agree that they are most likely the same genealogy. Again, I was just saying there is no clear error or contradiction and that you do not even know that they are the same exact genealogy. In your arguments, you seem to like to construct requests for specific proof or evidence that you know do not exist, but on the flip side, you draw absolute conclusions from incomplete data.

Will you please take a look at both accounts and tell me where do these supposedly different lines separate?

As I've already stated, many of these names are extremely common. I gave specific chapters in the Bible about the period we are discussing right now with multiple repeated names.

There are two issues here, let's not mix them please.
One is that Matthew references to an Old Testament genealogy in an incomplete way, which is very obvious.
And secondly, I propose that is very possible that Matthew did this knowingly and deliberately.
I can accept that the second point is my very own interpretation, and you can criticize my second view all you want, but you cannot pretend to refute my first point just by criticizing my second point. This is so basic and obvious.

Again, as I have been saying, it's possible it is not the same exact genealogy. Why does your overly critical need for evidence not apply to yourself? If this discussion was in the reverse, you would construe some specific case where no evidence could be provided... for instance, where does Mathew specifically say in the New Testament, "I am quoting the exact genealogy shown in first Chronicles?"

No, don't try to twist the words of my question. I didn't ask 'where does it talk about God testing the faith of people', I asked you 'Where does it say that God would permit confused material to be in the Bible with the purpose of testing the believers?'
Will you please give it a second try?

And here is another example of your overly critical requests for "evidence." I said God tests the faith of man. It is shown time and time again in the Bible, whether it meets your disingenuously crafted criteria or not.

 

[juvenissun]

No, don't try to twist the words of my question. I didn't ask 'where does it talk about God testing the faith of people', I asked you 'Where does it say that God would permit confused material to be in the Bible with the purpose of testing the believers?'
Will you please give it a second try?

Confusing or not is not the issue. Anything would confuse some people. We do not understand a Bible verse does not mean it is confusing to everyone. For example, your question is not confusing to me at all.

 

[Hentenza]

A number of posts have been deleted for violating the Exploring Christianity statement of purpose. Only Christians are allowed to respond to the OP and debate among responders is not allowed.

Please read the SoP here.

 

[lucaspa]

I cannot delete the post. So I deleted the content.

 

[lucaspa]

'Where does it say that God would permit confused material to be in the Bible with the purpose of testing the believers?'

This is a good answer to the idea that God would "test" us by putting confused material into scripture. However, if God is to allow free will, then God will permit confusing material into the Bible. Not to test anyone, but because keeping it out means messing with the minds of people -- brainwashing.

You might also want to look at Ezekiel 20:25: "Wherefore I gave them also statutes [that were] not good, and judgments whereby they should not live"

Now, if you dig into the historical and social context of Ezekiel, there is an explanation beyond the simple one that God put "confused" (nice, tactful way of putting what Ezekiel is saying) material into scripture.

Matthew 13:15
For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.
​

This passage says "this people" could see with their "fleshly eyes". These particular people choose not to see with their eyes or hear with their ears, but God has put the evidence out there for their eyes and ears. They do not need their hearts. Once they see with the eyes and hear with their ears, then they will understand with their hearts. Eyes and ears come first, hearts later.