New Testament Challenge--Accepted

[e2iPi]

My parents recently forwarded an email to me from the pastor of their church who had recently issued a challenge to the congregation--to read through the New Testament in some-odd number of days. It included a reading plan which was oddly not linear (I guess start at the beginning and stop and the end would have made too much sense). The challenge is accompanied by an invitation to send any questions to the pastor.

Me, being who I am, gleefully accepted the challenge. I've read the Bible many, many times during my delusional days, but it has been quite a while. Before I forward my questions on to the pastor (dang, did I accidentally click "reply to all"?? My bad :twisted: ), I thought I would post what I have written after reading the first five chapters of Matthew--because nobody can evicerate a bad argument, poorly phrased thought or glossed over fact quite like the League of Reason.

So, please, have at it.

-1

Edit: Please note that this is a rough draft--yes there are many awkward phrases, misspellings are likely and run-on sentences are a probability

Why are their two wildly divergent genealogies of Jesus? Matthew lists 41 generations from Abraham to Jesus (MT 1:1-16), while Luke lists 76 generations from Adam to Jesus with 54 generations from Abraham to Jesus (LK 3:25-38). The genealogy through David is well documented in the Old Testament, and here both authors agree, however from here there is only one point of convergence at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, who, interestingly enough, laid the foundations of the Second Temple following the Babylonian captivity c. 538 BCE.

Why does the author of Matthew quote Isaiah 7:14 as if it is a Messianic prophesy (MT:1:23)? This section of Isaiah is obviously a reference to the Syro-Ephraimite War. The significance of Immanuel is in that Assyria will not overtake Judah because "God <is> with us." Even a casual reading of the surrounding verses makes this quite clear. Additionally, Jesus is the Greek version of the Hebrew name "Joshua" which means "the Lord saves." The two names do not equate on any level and Jesus was never called Immanuel in the New Testament.

The second, and more fundamental problem which arises out of the authors seemingly limited understanding of Hebrew (another possibility is that the author was working from a first or second century BCE translation of Isaiah into Greek which used the word "parthenos," which does carry the explicit meaning of "virgin") is the word virgin. Isaiah 7:14, in the original Hebrew, uses the word "almah" does not inherently refer to a virgin, it is simply the feminine form of the noun "elem," meaning "youth." It's use seems to confer age rather than sexual experience and in fact the NASB only translates "almah" into "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, every other usage is translated as "maiden" or "girl."


Again, in this very same verse, the author of Matthew misquotes Isaiah 7:14 with the phrase "and they will call him.." whereas the typical English translation is "she will call." This brings up another interesting observation of Hebrew to English translation. The Hebrew word "qarat" is translated here in the third person singular, however the word is also found in three other passages (Gen 16:11; Isa 60:18; Jer 3:4) and is each time translated into the second person singular. The third person singular appears as "qar'ah" (see: Gen 29:35; 30:26; 1 Chr 4:9). This implies that Isaiah would have been addressing someone present at the time, not presenting a prophecy in reference to someone 800 years in the future.

The timing of Jesus' birth seems to be in dispute between Matthew and Luke. Matthew places the date of Jesus' birth during the reign of Herod (MT 2:1) who died in 4 BCE while the Gospel of Luke places the birth nearly a decade later at the time of the Census of Quirinius in 6 CE (LK 2:1). The account in Luke is also problematic because there is no historic precedent for a census which would include the entire populace. Those conducted by Augustus included only Roman citizens and it was not Roman custom to require persons to return to their place of birth during a census.

Did Jesus flee with his family to Egypt after the visit of the Magi? According to Luke, immediately after the required rituals surrounding a birth were completed, the took his family back to Nazareth. There seems to be very little room here for both accounts to be reconciled. The author goes on to describe the relocation of the family to Nazareth not as if they were originally form the area, but as if they settled there only after their return from Egypt. The precedent for quoting scripture out of context in order to make it seem as if prophecy was being fulfilled (MT 2:15). Hosea 11 is not in any way prophetic - it is an obvious reference to the exodus, not the birth of the messiah.

The author of Matthew continues his trend of finding prophecy where none exists in 2:18 where he quotes Jeremiah 31:15 as a reference to Herod's slaughter of children (another issue of questionable historical veracity). However, if we continue reading Jeremiah through verses 16 and 17, it becomes clear that "children" is used here in the sense of "Children of Israel" (with Rachel being one of the matriarchs of the nation of Israel) in Babylonian captivity rather than a literal child. Verse 17, which ends with the promise that, "They will return from the land of the enemy," makes it clear that this is not a prophecy of Jewish children slaughtered by a Jewish king.

The final scriptural reference in the second chapter, "He will be called a Nazarene," is not found in the Old Testament or any know Jewish texts.

Matthew 5:18-19 seem to be discordant not only with other sections of the New Testament, but also with the lifestyle of the vast majority of Christians today. This passage, directly form Jesus, states in no uncertain terms, that The Law (Mosaic Law) is and always will be in full effect. Although Luke 16:16 seems to have Jesus imply that the Law was no longer in force from the time of John the Baptist, verse 17 again verifies that the law will not, indeed cannot, fail. This is directly contradicted in Romans 6:14, Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:13 and Ephesians 2:15 just to name a few.

Another verse in the fifth chapter which stands out in stark contrast to another passage is verse 44 where Jesus makes the virtuous decree that we should love our enemies. This, of course, is a new concept coming out of the genocidal Old Testament where Yahweh regularly instructs his people to met out wrath and destruction upon his enemies. Yet Paul seems to disagree with Jesus in 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 where Christians are directed to shun unbelievers and 1 Corinthians 16:22 where those who do not love Jesus are declared anathema, the very antonym of love. Other translations are cursed and accursed--certainty not someone to be loved.

 

[nemesiss]

My parents recently forwarded an email to me from the pastor of their church who had recently issued a challenge to the congregation--to read through the New Testament in some-odd number of days. It included a reading plan which was oddly not linear (I guess start at the beginning and stop and the end would have made too much sense). The challenge is accompanied by an invitation to send any questions to the pastor.

Me, being who I am, gleefully accepted the challenge. I've read the Bible many, many times during my delusional days, but it has been quite a while. Before I forward my questions on to the pastor (dang, did I accidentally click "reply to all"?? My bad :twisted: ), I thought I would post what I have written after reading the first five chapters of Matthew--because nobody can evicerate a bad argument, poorly phrased thought or glossed over fact quite like the League of Reason.

So, please, have at it.

-1

so from what i get is that we have to grab a bible, take some random part of it, read it and the moment our brain goes "that makes no fucking sense (in reality)" we write down what on our mind, that text gets FWDD to that pastor and somewhere in the (near) future we might get an answer...

sounds interesting, though i have no bible... perhaps we could send him the thunderf00t video's of his new series "bible for beginners" and let him explain what thunderf00t is interpertation wrong.

 

[DeistPaladin]

FWIW, I did a video on the "Jesus timeline" and how the Gospels contradict each other and what we know of history.

 

[Warhawk57]

Your first argument is easily dissmissed when you look at a full graph of the jesus's family line... It turns out that somwhere in the mix their cousins in a weird since..... You make some very good points otherwise.

But know that bible contradictions are easily excused also because apologist know the bible better then yourself. They have explanations for most questions. I think you should read a book called the 'Case for Christ'
there are some outright lies in it but most of the facts that aren't supernatural are considered factual by secular historians.

 

[borrofburi]

I think you should read a book called the 'Case for Christ'
there are some outright lies in it but most of the facts that aren't supernatural are considered factual by secular historians.

It's outright lies and emotional manipulation. It wasn't convincing to me even when I was a christian. The problem with it is that it takes a semi-dubious historical source and declares dubious arguments as factual/valid; I could write a sequel and call it "the case for Romulus" in which I use Livy's histories of Rome to prove that Romulus really was a god. SImilarly for greek gods.

 

[Warhawk57]

I thought filtering out emotional arguments was standard for reading a Christian book haha anyways... Look all I am saying is it really got me thinking about jesus and how I only take in atheist arguments for practically everything. I figure you hav to take both sides! and form a opinion based through both sources.

Ps. It's not like they are deliberately lying(the author and interview people) they just set out with a viewpoint and try to peice together evidence that matches with that viewpoint

 

[e2iPi]

Your first argument is easily dissmissed when you look at a full graph of the jesus's family line... It turns out that somwhere in the mix their cousins in a weird since.....

Wait, what? Jesus is his own cousin? I thought that only happened in West Virginia!

I think you should read a book called the 'Case for Christ'
there are some outright lies in it but most of the facts that aren't supernatural are considered factual by secular historians.

I've read it, and I have to agree with borrofburi in that it is nonsense and outright lies. His claims of objectivity are belied by the "experts" he chose to interview and the lack of any rigorous counter-argument.

-1

 

[Warhawk57]

Have you read the wiki on the family tree of Christ??? (and no I did not mean to say that Jesus was his own cousin) And before you get mad at me for citing wiki as a source, have you even tried to look at some other sources? I am trying to get across that this contradiction u see is so obvoise that it can't be true.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Have you read the wiki on the family tree of Christ??? (and no I did not mean to say that Jesus was his own cousin) And before you get mad at me for citing wiki as a source, have you even tried to look at some other sources? I am trying to get across that this contradiction u see is so obvoise that it can't be true.

There's no problem with citing the Wiki as a source - as it is regularly cleaned and cleansed of uncited materials on a near-daily basis. But it would be better if you used proper grammer so that we know what you're saying.

 

[e2iPi]

Have you read the wiki on the family tree of Christ??? (and no I did not mean to say that Jesus was his own cousin) And before you get mad at me for citing wiki as a source, have you even tried to look at some other sources? I am trying to get across that this contradiction u see is so obvoise that it can't be true.

No, I have not read the Wiki, and no, I'm not going to get mad at anybody for citing Wiki as a source--it is usually a surprisingly good one general knowledge.

I know the contradiction is obvious, and since it has been around since the earliest days of the Christian church, I assume there are many explanations. I am most familiar with the claim that the author of Luke use the genealogy of Marry, however that is not a fully satisfying argument, although that is the exact response I expect.

Actually, I could easily leave this particular argument out completely and I doubt it would change the validity of my observations, although it may very will increase their impact by removing an obvious point of attack.

My personal favorite theme is in how Paul (arguably the single most important figure in Christianity, and responsible for a large percentage of it's doctrine) on numerous occasions directly contracts Jesus.

-1

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Apart from the Wiki time-line for Jesus, you also have a fairly good analysis of the Gospel of Matthew, which may provide you with some useful points to raise with the said pastor.

This article also links to the Jesus time-line Wiki one.

Kindest regards,

James