GOD and the black hole

[Ben Kenobi]

We should just call this thread- Jack deconstructs the Nativity.

Your argument assumes Markan priority, which is by no means clear. If Matthew was written before Mark, than why would they add the Nativity? There is no evidence contradicting biblical testimony of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, and none in support of your unlikely scenario.

1. Micah 5:2-7

You are right in that Micah was not talking about Jesus, but rather the promised Messiah. In order to support his case for Jesus as the Messiah, Matthew cites Micah 5:2 reminding Jews that the promised Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, which Jesus fulfilled. Micah 5:6 is not used here by Matthew, as this is an entirely different prophecy.

2. Isaiah 7:14

The hinge of your percieved contradiction between Matthew 1:22 and Isaiah is the single word virgin.
as in Isaiah 7:14:

'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and he will call him Immanuel.'

One interpretation is that virgin means a young woman about to be betrothed. The same hebrew word is also used in Gen 24:43:

"See I am standing beside this spring; if a maiden comes out to draw water and I say to her, 'Please let me drink a little water from the jar.' "

The NIV translates this word as maiden. It is expected that a young woman about to be married will be a virgin.
Isaiah predicted that a virgin would concieve, which was fulfilled through the Holy Spirit, conceiving Jesus.

You cannot understand the second part of the prophecy without translating the name E(I)mmanuel, which means 'God is with us'.

This is fulfilled at Jesus' birth when an angel of the Lord appears to Joseph, saying that their son would save his people from their sins. In the OT, only God, or Yahweh can save people from their sins. Therefore, the angel asserts that the child of Mary is God, and that with His birth, God is with them.

"What use is a "sign" that won't appear for centuries?"

God follows his own timetable, not that of man. He will wait until the time is right.

3. Matthew 2:16-18

Matthew 2:16-18 does not refer to Jesus, nor is it intended to. Matthew clearly demonstrates a familiarity with Hebrew and the OT, when explaining the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15, as King Herod attempts to slaughter all the Jewish children.

4. Matthew 21:7

"But Matthew misinterprets the expression and refers to Jesus riding two animals (presumably like a circus performer, one foot on each): he doesn't understand Hebrew."

Clever, yet you do not cite Luke 19:30-35 or Mark 11:2-7. Both say that he rode the colt alone, and do not mention a second animal. Look, a real contradiction in the Gospels, yet you fail to mention it. What a shame.

No- the offending passage in the NIV, Matthew 21:7

"They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them. "

The object of them are the cloaks and not the donkeys.
Jesus sat on the cloaks, as some were placed on the colt, and others on the donkey.

Finally, Matthew only cites Zechariah 9:9 as fulfilled on Palm Sunday, heralding the triumphant return of Jesus to Jerusalem. Zech 10-15 is a seperate prophecy.

Even so, a military ruler will not disarm, taking away the chariots, rather than destroying, and does not proclaim peace to the nations, all the nations not just Israel. Both these will occur, but not until the end-times.

Answer my question I posed earlier- I only had one, and you have had many:
What makes a Christian a Christian?

[Zero-Tau]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Answer my question I posed earlier- I only had one, and you have had many:
What makes a Christian a Christian?

Here I am again.

I believe you misunderstood my answer. Of course, simply knowing the bible does not make one a Christian, as you pointed out. What I meant is that the bible carries many messages - some moral, some ethical, some predictions, whatever - and the accept of these messages is what makes one a Christian. Right?

One thing though: I'm not sure what the question actually has to do with the topic at hand, which is whether there is proof of a God.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Ok... here you go what makes a Christian Christian.

34 “Then the king will say to those good
people on his right, ‘Come. My Father has
given you great blessings. Come and get the
kingdom God promised you. That kingdom
has been prepared for you since the world was
made. 35 You can have this kingdom, because
I was hungry and you gave me food to eat. I
was thirsty, and you gave me something to
drink. I was alone and away from home, and
you invited me into your home. 36 I was
without clothes, and you gave me something
to wear. I was sick, and you cared for me. I
was in prison, and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the good people will answer,
‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and give
you food? When did we see you thirsty and
give you something to drink? 38 When did we
see you alone and away from home and invite
you into our home? When did we see you
without clothes and give you something to
wear? 39 When did we see you sick or in
prison and care for you?’
40 “Then the king will answer, ‘I tell you the
truth. Anything you did for any of my people
here,* you also did for me.’

*any of my people here Literally, “one of the least of these brothers
of mine.”

[Robert]

Jack the Bodiless,

You are admitting that the genealogies are inaccurate!

No, it is legitime to skip records in the jewish genealogy for the reason of backtracking to the origin roots.
The jewish population in those days kept strict genealogical record, which is very natural for people who had such a strong messiah expection. Thus it was very easy in those days to track down Jesus' genealogy based on the information Luke and Matthew gave.

But Mary was from the tribe of Levi, not David. So there goes the "prophesied" Messiah from David's line.

The jewish genealogy goes through in-law parents, even if the son of the in-law parents is not the father of the baby. Thus, if the parents of Jesus' stephfather are ancestors of David, than so is Jesus.

We have mentions of Christian writings, but we don't know what they said. We also know that several "gospels" have been discarded. The text of the books we now call "the gospels" cannot be traced back into the 1st century.

If there would have been a lot of different gospels during the first centuries, much of them would still be around. Compare that with the large area in which the same people knew the same gospels in the 2nd and 3rd century, we can assume that they all have been teached gospels that have been around during the 1st century.

Of course that is no proof. I will admit that.

True, but there's no reason at all to assume they were written before 70 AD. And they "predicted" the first wave of destruction in 70 AD, but not when the same thing happened all over again in 125 AD.

Factual, yes it was predicted.
Jesus said that Jerusalem would be plowed like a field. In 135 AD (I thought it was 135 out the top of my head) a roman army, nicknamed 'the plow' completely ruined Jerusalem.

Christians prefer to believe they were written earlier, because they want to "prove" that a prophecy occurred.

A very very very interesting way of thinking.

true.
Conclusion: it depends on what you want to believe to what you date the gospels.

I think I've read more arguments for >70, but not out of the top of my head.

Matthew 2:5-6 is a mangled reference to Micah 5:2, prophesying the imminent birth of a military leader who will defeat the Assyrians. And not from the town of Bethlehem, either: from the tribe of Bethlehem Ephrata.

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting. Therefore will he give them up, until the time [that] she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.

Beyth Lechem (hebrew word) is the city in which David was born.
'Ephraath (hebrew word) is the place where Rachel died and was buried, near Bethlehem.

Words also used in: Gen 25:16
Gen 48:7
Ruth 4:11
Ps 132:6
all these places mention it as a place.
Only Chronicles speaks of Ephrata, father of Bethlehem.
Which makes it reasonable, the place has been named after the father of the people who lived there.

notice what has been said about this ruler:
"whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting."

But you are right, The Messiah is not only our redeemer. He's our king as well. This prophecy morely forsays his Kingdom.

John 7:42-52: The crowd thought the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but Jesus was born in the Galilee area: "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet". That was why they didn't want to accept him.

Notice: the CROWD thought he was from Galilee.
They did not know he was born in Bethlehem, but moved back to Galilee very early.

The killing of the children. Plenty of historians were keen to record Herod's misdeeds, but they ALL missed that one.

Only the children in the small city of Bethlehem were killed. Pherhaps not even more than 50.......
Even if you're right, it's still argumento ex nihilio.

I got to go now.

CS

[Jack the Bodiless]

Your argument assumes Markan priority, which is by no means clear. If Matthew was written before Mark, than why would they add the Nativity? There is no evidence contradicting biblical testimony of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, and none in support of your unlikely scenario.

No Biblical evidence (except John). But plenty of contradictions with historical evidence. The Herod/Quirinus problem, the bizarre and non-historical rule that required Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem (a Roman census-taker would want to know how many people were currently living in each town, for tax purposes etc), and so on.

1. Micah 5:2-7

You are right in that Micah was not talking about Jesus, but rather the promised Messiah. In order to support his case for Jesus as the Messiah, Matthew cites Micah 5:2 reminding Jews that the promised Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, which Jesus fulfilled. Micah 5:6 is not used here by Matthew, as this is an entirely different prophecy.

It is the same prophecy. Read the whole thing! The "Messiah" of Micah is supposed to defeat the Assyrians.

2. Isaiah 7:14

The hinge of your percieved contradiction between Matthew 1:22 and Isaiah is the single word virgin.

No, it isn't. I was commenting on a sloppy translation of "young woman", but the key issue is (yet again) that Matthew is hijacking a prophecy about somebody else entirely.

You cannot understand the second part of the prophecy without translating the name E(I)mmanuel, which means 'God is with us'.

This is fulfilled at Jesus' birth when an angel of the Lord appears to Joseph, saying that their son would save his people from their sins. In the OT, only God, or Yahweh can save people from their sins. Therefore, the angel asserts that the child of Mary is God, and that with His birth, God is with them.

There is no mention in Isaiah that this "Emmanuel" will save anybody from sin. "God is with us" doesn't say that. Ahaz wants reassurance that God is with his armies: that Israel will prevail against the Syrians.

"What use is a "sign" that won't appear for centuries?"

God follows his own timetable, not that of man. He will wait until the time is right.

Isaiah gives the timetable in verse 7: "within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people". Centuries before Jesus.

3. Matthew 2:16-18

Matthew 2:16-18 does not refer to Jesus, nor is it intended to. Matthew clearly demonstrates a familiarity with Hebrew and the OT, when explaining the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15, as King Herod attempts to slaughter all the Jewish children.

But the prophecy referred to events that had already come to pass centuries before! There was no outstanding "prophecy" to be fulfilled. So, when Matthew said of the Herodian massacre, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet", he was clearly lying.

"But Matthew misinterprets the expression and refers to Jesus riding two animals (presumably like a circus performer, one foot on each): he doesn't understand Hebrew."

Clever, yet you do not cite Luke 19:30-35 or Mark 11:2-7. Both say that he rode the colt alone, and do not mention a second animal. Look, a real contradiction in the Gospels, yet you fail to mention it. What a shame.

I didn't need to. The authors of Luke and Mark didn't make Matthew's blunder. This is consistent with my point: there was only one animal, a young ass. Matthew's error is threefold:

1. Assming from the Hebrew idiom (in the source he was copying from) that Jesus rode two animals.

2. Assming from the Hebrew idiom that the man prophesied by Zechariah rode (or would ride) two animals.

3. Assuming that Jesus would fit the prophecy, when the following verses of Zechariah referred to a military leader.

Finally, Matthew only cites Zechariah 9:9 as fulfilled on Palm Sunday, heralding the triumphant return of Jesus to Jerusalem. Zech 10-15 is a seperate prophecy.

No, it isn't. Read it again. Zechariah 9:9 mentions the coming of the King. Zechariah 9:10 describes the King's dominion: "from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth". The following verses talk of swords, arrows, and sling stones: talk of war and conquest. Finally, what a great place the world would be after the armies of the Messiah have conquered it.

[Docfeelgood]

Boris

I was just trying to answer your question the best I could.
Not intending to debate,sorry

[Jack the Bodiless]

CyberShy:

You are admitting that the genealogies are inaccurate!

No, it is legitime to skip records in the jewish genealogy for the reason of backtracking to the origin roots.
The jewish population in those days kept strict genealogical record, which is very natural for people who had such a strong messiah expection. Thus it was very easy in those days to track down Jesus' genealogy based on the information Luke and Matthew gave.

No skipping allowed. The shorter genealogy (Matthew) declares: "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."

True, but there's no reason at all to assume they were written before 70 AD. And they "predicted" the first wave of destruction in 70 AD, but not when the same thing happened all over again in 125 AD.

Factual, yes it was predicted.
Jesus said that Jerusalem would be plowed like a field. In 135 AD (I thought it was 135 out the top of my head) a roman army, nicknamed 'the plow' completely ruined Jerusalem.

Show me where this was predicted as a separate event. If the gospels were written after 70 AD and mentioned Jerusalem being "plowed like a field", it's reasonable to assume that the "plow" nickname would have been used by later historians.

A modern example: Revelation "prophesied" a battle to be fought in Israel, at a place called Armageddon. This word has been frequently used to describe a possible cataclysmic nuclear war between NATO and the Soviet Union, nowhere near Israel. The name was stolen.

But you are right, The Messiah is not only our redeemer. He's our king as well. This prophecy morely forsays his Kingdom.

And when, exactly, did Jesus lay waste the land of Assyria with the sword?

John 7:42-52: The crowd thought the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but Jesus was born in the Galilee area: "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet". That was why they didn't want to accept him.

Notice: the CROWD thought he was from Galilee.
They did not know he was born in Bethlehem, but moved back to Galilee very early.

And neither did John, apparently. John calls him "Jesus of Nazareth" and makes no mention of the so-called "Bethlehem Nativity". If the crowd were wrong, there is no hint of that.

[Robert]

"So all the generations....."

I'll look into it.

Show me where this was predicted as a separate event.

I can't. Neither can you show that it was predicted as a combined event.

But a prophecy doesn't nescecarily have to apply to one event / moment. There are even prophecies that are fullfilled multiple times.

If the gospels were written after 70 AD and mentioned Jerusalem being "plowed like a field", it's reasonable to assume that the "plow" nickname would have been used by later historians.

that's true.
But it still shows that Jesus forsaw what was going to happen.

Like Jesus said that no stone would be stand on another stone. What actually happened was that the golden roof of the temple melted, and the gold got between the stones, so the soldiers lifted all the stones from each other to get the gold from between them.

A modern example: Revelation "prophesied" a battle to be fought in Israel, at a place called Armageddon. This word has been frequently used to describe a possible cataclysmic nuclear war between NATO and the Soviet Union, nowhere near Israel. The name was stolen.

Actually, this 'stolen armageddon' never happened.
But you're right that a name can easily be applied afterwards. The event nontheless happens like predicted.

And when, exactly, did Jesus lay waste the land of Assyria with the sword?

And where, exactly, does the prophecy say that the man predicted by Mica was going to do that? Pherhaps you're combining different prophecies again.

And neither did John, apparently. John calls him "Jesus of Nazareth" and makes no mention of the so-called "Bethlehem Nativity". If the crowd were wrong, there is no hint of that.

Pherhaps because John assumed that his readers knew about this.
Besides that, Of course Jesus is known as Jesus of Nazareth. That's the city he grow up.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
Boris

I was just trying to answer your question the best I could.
Not intending to debate,sorry

Ok, but you asked questions, so don't expect not to get some answers.

[Docfeelgood]

fair is fair

[Jack the Bodiless]

But a prophecy doesn't nescecarily have to apply to one event / moment. There are even prophecies that are fullfilled multiple times.

A prophecy should be an event that's predicted in advance, and then happens as predicted.

But what happens instead is that a Christian (or Jewish) apologist keeps checking scriptures and trying to spot phrases which can be ripped out of context and applied to later events. Then they cry "prophecy!", just as Matthew did. In a book as large as the Bible, there will be many passages that can be used in this way.

If the gospels were written after 70 AD and mentioned Jerusalem being "plowed like a field", it's reasonable to assume that the "plow" nickname would have been used by later historians.

that's true.
But it still shows that Jesus forsaw what was going to happen.

Not if the account was written shortly after 70 AD and the author was only describing 70 AD. The entire temple might have been dismantled in 70 AD. The Romans were thorough: if a commander said "raze the temple to the ground", no stone would be left on another.

And when, exactly, did Jesus lay waste the land of Assyria with the sword?

And where, exactly, does the prophecy say that the man predicted by Mica was going to do that? Pherhaps you're combining different prophecies again.

This is the whole chapter, Micah 5:

Micah, Chapter 5

5:1 Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.

5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

5:3 Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.

5:4 And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

5:5 And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.

5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

5:7 And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the LORD, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men.

5:8 And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles in the midst of many people as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep: who, if he go through, both treadeth down, and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

5:9 Thine hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.

5:10 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots:

5:11 And I will cut off the cities of thy land, and throw down all thy strong holds:

5:12 And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thine hand; and thou shalt have no more soothsayers:

5:13 Thy graven images also will I cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee; and thou shalt no more worship the work of thine hands.

5:14 And I will pluck up thy groves out of the midst of thee: so will I destroy thy cities.

5:15 And I will execute vengeance in anger and fury upon the heathen, such as they have not heard.

So it's pretty obvious that this guy will be born to lead others in repelling an Assyrian invasion and then laying waste to Assyria. And he'll have fifteen disciples or sub-commanders (seven shepherds and eight principal men), or possibly fourteen (if he counts as one of the principal men).

And neither did John, apparently. John calls him "Jesus of Nazareth" and makes no mention of the so-called "Bethlehem Nativity". If the crowd were wrong, there is no hint of that.

Pherhaps because John assumed that his readers knew about this.
Besides that, Of course Jesus is known as Jesus of Nazareth. That's the city he grow up.

Each gospel is supposed to be an independent, standalone account. None of them say "see Luke for details" or whatever.

Furthermore, if a whole crowd of people were wrong about the birthplace of Jesus, why would John assume that his readers would know? It would be obvious to him that many did NOT know.

If he knew they were wrong, he would have mentioned it. But he did not. Either he knew they were right, or he was wrong himself.