U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-17-2012, 01:02 PM
 
5,496 posts, read 4,402,563 times
Reputation: 1802

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshipmate View Post
Mt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

The problem is you try to 'pick apart' the Scriptures and yet you don't even understand when a 'word play' is being used.

The translators chose to translate propheton [προφητῶν] as prophets when in fact only one prophet Isaiah spoke of Messiah as netzer; 'young shoot' or "sprout." Netzer is the basis for the name Nazareth.

Now other prophets reveal Messiah as the Branch, but use the word tzemach, thus eliminating the word play by Matthew.
Mshipmate, I do not even think 'word play' matters (whatever that means). Let us grant that:

1) Mattew meant a single prophet (not phophets) and that the translators screwed-up and,

2) that he was thinking of Is.11:1 - 'And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch [netzer] shall grow out of his roots...'

How does this fit with what Matthew was trying to convey about Jesus dwelling in a city called Nazareth in order to fulfill that verse? No prophet says '...he shall be called a Nazarene.' In fact Isaiah's point is that he will be from Jesse who was not from a city called Nazareth.

This brings up a broader point about Mathew's use of OT scripture. It would seem that he played fast and loose with it. If the methodological goal posts are set so far wide anything can fulfill anything else.

Matthew applies scripture to Jesus when the scriptures do not even speak of him. For instance Matthew's 'Egypt' prophecy (Hosea 11:1) and his 'Immanuel' prophecy (Is.7:14).

The Immanuel prophecy was for that generation and Jesus was never called Immanuel. The point of the verse in Is.7:14 is to assure them that God will be with them to bring salvation from their enimies - in this case Syria and Israel going up against Jerusalem to destroy it.

Matthew is using many different types of interpretation and application - like Midrash and Typology - and probably even filling in historical gaps. But this just begs the question - what real apologetic value is there is doing this other than satisfying a certain methodology used at that time. How does this actually fulfill anything when the goal post are so wide and flexible? It really has no evidentiary value particularly in today's Christian apologetics which acts as if there is a one-to-one correspondence - and there certainly and obviously is not.

Note also that Luke does not have any OT Scriptures in his pre-ministry narrative about Jesus as does Matthew who has 5 of them. Furthermore, Luke and Matthew contradict each other on the fight to Egypt. There is no way to reconcile the two - it is not just a matter of Luke omitting this point - it is the way they present the narratives that causes the problem.

Last edited by Shiloh1; 04-17-2012 at 01:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-17-2012, 04:56 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,937,389 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by mshipmate View Post
And so I leave you will your folly. There are no inconsistencies in the Scripture, just in men's [mis]understanding of them.

However I must remind you of this. You will stand before the Author of the Scriptures one day and answer to Him.
RESPONSE:

On the contrary, I've presented a number of contradictions including the two differing dates for the birth of Jesus in Matt 2 and Luke 2. Try sticking with the plain meaning of words.

>>However I must remind you of this. You will stand before the Author of the Scriptures one day and answer to Him.<<

RESPONSE:

Ah yes. THe old implied threat that if you don't believe scripture in inerrant (in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary), you'll proibably go to hell.

On the other hand, how do you think God, who gave man rationality, will judge someone who refused to use it in recognizing the contradictions in scripture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,937,389 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomtkirk View Post
Ahhh... i see where you're going...

I think...

Matthew 2:1 ... Jesus is born
Matthew 2:19 ... Herod dies in 4 BC
Luke 2:1-5 ... Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem after Quirinius becomes Syrian governer in 6 AD
Luke 2:6-7 ... Jesus is born

is this pretty close...???


You do know that they are two different accounts AND at different times, right?
Matthew 2

1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea( after... the shepherds were told by an angel... the magi saw the star later... and there's traveling time.) in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, 2 “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? They didn't know where He was... For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.” 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet: 6 ‘AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH,
ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH;
FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULER
WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.’”
7 Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, so that I too may come and worship Him.” 9 After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. 11 (Not the Inn or a barn or stable or whatever) they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. 12 And having been warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod, the magi left for their own country by another way.

clearly... the Magi (or wisemen) were NOT present when Christ was born... clearly. do you agree?

Have you ever wondered why Herod went so overboard and killed all the male children 2 YEARS and under? Perhaps there was some question as to how old he was at the time??? he was consulting the scribes who knew the scriptures (they quote them to him). Herod asked what time the star had appeared... He wanted to know exactly when it appeared... he was trying to nail down a timeline.
RESPONSE:

There is nothing in Luke's account about a slaughter of the innocent because according to Luke's account Herod had been dead for ten years when Jesus was born.

Also note that the Jewish historian, Josephus, living about this time and a serious critic of King Herod, mentions nothing about such a slaughter nor do any of the evangelists except Matthew, who wanted to pretend that was why Rachael was "weeping for her children."

>>After coming into the house <<

Yes. Matthew has Joseph already living reasonably in a house in Bethlehem before Jesus, birth not traveling to Bethlehem from Nazareth.

Last edited by ancient warrior; 04-17-2012 at 05:10 PM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,937,389 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomtkirk View Post
Ahhh... i see where you're going...

I think...

Matthew 2:1 ... Jesus is born
Matthew 2:19 ... Herod dies in 4 BC
Luke 2:1-5 ... Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem after Quirinius becomes Syrian governer in 6 AD
Luke 2:6-7 ... Jesus is born

is this pretty close...???


You do know that they are two different accounts AND at different times, right?
Matthew 2

1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea( after... the shepherds were told by an angel... the magi saw the star later... and there's traveling time.) in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, 2 “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? They didn't know where He was... For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.” 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet: 6 ‘AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH,
ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH;
FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULER
WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.’”
7 Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, so that I too may come and worship Him.” 9 After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. 11 (Not the Inn or a barn or stable or whatever) they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. 12 And having been warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod, the magi left for their own country by another way.

clearly... the Magi (or wisemen) were NOT present when Christ was born... clearly. do you agree?

Have you ever wondered why Herod went so overboard and killed all the male children 2 YEARS and under? Perhaps there was some question as to how old he was at the time??? he was consulting the scribes who knew the scriptures (they quote them to him). Herod asked what time the star had appeared... He wanted to know exactly when it appeared... he was trying to nail down a timeline.
RESPONSE:

There is nothing in Luke's account about a slaughter of the innocent because according to Luke's account Herod had been dead for ten years when Jesus was born.

Also note that the Jewish historian, Josephus, living about this time and a serious critic of King Herod mentions nothing about such a slaughter nor do any of the evangelists except Matthew, who wants to pretend that why Rachael was "weeping for her children."

>>After coming into the house <<

Yes. Matthew has Joseph living (presumably in a house)in Bethlehem before Jesus' birth, not traveling to Bethlehem from Nazareth. He and Luke disagree on this too.

>>"‘AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH, ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH; FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULER WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.’”<<

Actually, that isn't the prophecy. Micah 5 :2 reads "But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah,from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

Bethleham of Eprathah was a clan or tribe, not a town in Judah. It's the tribe that David was born into. But Matthew altered this prophecy too. Matthew does a lot of that.

Last edited by ancient warrior; 04-17-2012 at 05:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 05:24 PM
 
34,507 posts, read 8,896,494 times
Reputation: 4790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
Mshipmate, I do not even think 'word play' matters (whatever that means). Let us grant that:

1) Mattew meant a single prophet (not phophets) and that the translators screwed-up and,

2) that he was thinking of Is.11:1 - 'And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch [netzer] shall grow out of his roots...'

How does this fit with what Matthew was trying to convey about Jesus dwelling in a city called Nazareth in order to fulfill that verse? No prophet says '...he shall be called a Nazarene.' In fact Isaiah's point is that he will be from Jesse who was not from a city called Nazareth.

This brings up a broader point about Mathew's use of OT scripture. It would seem that he played fast and loose with it. If the methodological goal posts are set so far wide anything can fulfill anything else.

Matthew applies scripture to Jesus when the scriptures do not even speak of him. For instance Matthew's 'Egypt' prophecy (Hosea 11:1) and his 'Immanuel' prophecy (Is.7:14).

The Immanuel prophecy was for that generation and Jesus was never called Immanuel. The point of the verse in Is.7:14 is to assure them that God will be with them to bring salvation from their enimies - in this case Syria and Israel going up against Jerusalem to destroy it.

Matthew is using many different types of interpretation and application - like Midrash and Typology - and probably even filling in historical gaps. But this just begs the question - what real apologetic value is there is doing this other than satisfying a certain methodology used at that time. How does this actually fulfill anything when the goal post are so wide and flexible? It really has no evidentiary value particularly in today's Christian apologetics which acts as if there is a one-to-one correspondence - and there certainly and obviously is not.

Note also that Luke does not have any OT Scriptures in his pre-ministry narrative about Jesus as does Matthew who has 5 of them. Furthermore, Luke and Matthew contradict each other on the fight to Egypt. There is no way to reconcile the two - it is not just a matter of Luke omitting this point - it is the way they present the narratives that causes the problem.
I would just like to say that I am impressed by your knowledge of the ins and outs of the gospels and Acts and the discrepancies, contradictions and fallacies in them. Ancient warrior, too. It is dismal but not surprising that the response is:

There are no contradictions, only in the minds of the unbeliever (no attempt made to explain away the contradictions, of course) and the attempt to frighten you into line with the threat of being put up before an annoyed deity.

Your case, (to anyone with a truly open mind) is obviously the sounder.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 05:36 PM
 
37,504 posts, read 25,238,629 times
Reputation: 5855
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I would just like to say that I am impressed by your knowledge of the ins and outs of the gospels and Acts and the discrepancies, contradictions and fallacies in them. Ancient warrior, too. It is dismal but not surprising that the response is:

There are no contradictions, only in the minds of the unbeliever (no attempt made to explain away the contradictions, of course) and the attempt to frighten you into line with the threat of being put up before an annoyed deity.

Your case, (to anyone with a truly open mind) is obviously the sounder.
I echo your praise and would include you in the group, Arequipa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 07:00 PM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,647,071 times
Reputation: 7409
Every so called contradiction has been addressed by theologians in the past and can be easily researched.

For instance, the claim by skeptics that Luke says that Jesus was born in 6 A.D while Matthew places Jesus' birth around 6 B.C to 2 B.C and therefore presents a contradiction is shown to be false.

Here are just a few sites which address this particular so called contradiction and present solutions.

Luke 2:2 Bible Commentary

BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: THE BIRTH DATE OF JESUS CHRIST

The First Census and Quirinius (Luke 2.2)

But what a waste of time to bother debating the issue with skeptics who have shown that they have no interest in getting to the truth of the matter but whose only desire is to discredit the word of God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 07:51 PM
 
531 posts, read 387,361 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Every so called contradiction has been addressed by theologians in the past and can be easily researched.

For instance, the claim by skeptics that Luke says that Jesus was born in 6 A.D while Matthew places Jesus' birth around 6 B.C to 2 B.C and therefore presents a contradiction is shown to be false.

Here are just a few sites which address this particular so called contradiction and present solutions.

Luke 2:2 Bible Commentary

BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: THE BIRTH DATE OF JESUS CHRIST

The First Census and Quirinius (Luke 2.2)

But what a waste of time to bother debating the issue with skeptics who have shown that they have no interest in getting to the truth of the matter but whose only desire is to discredit the word of God.
I agree that it will probably not bear fruit... But I do get something out of it. I like a good discussion.

However, maybe my efforts would be better spent somewhere else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2012, 01:51 AM
 
5,496 posts, read 4,402,563 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I would just like to say that I am impressed by your knowledge of the ins and outs of the gospels and Acts and the discrepancies, contradictions and fallacies in them. Ancient warrior, too. It is dismal but not surprising that the response is:

There are no contradictions, only in the minds of the unbeliever (no attempt made to explain away the contradictions, of course) and the attempt to frighten you into line with the threat of being put up before an annoyed deity.

Your case, (to anyone with a truly open mind) is obviously the sounder.
Thanks, much appreciated
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2012, 03:25 AM
 
5,496 posts, read 4,402,563 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Every so called contradiction has been addressed by theologians in the past and can be easily researched.

For instance, the claim by skeptics that Luke says that Jesus was born in 6 A.D while Matthew places Jesus' birth around 6 B.C to 2 B.C and therefore presents a contradiction is shown to be false.

Here are just a few sites which address this particular so called contradiction and present solutions.

Luke 2:2 Bible Commentary

BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: THE BIRTH DATE OF JESUS CHRIST

The First Census and Quirinius (Luke 2.2)

But what a waste of time to bother debating the issue with skeptics who have shown that they have no interest in getting to the truth of the matter but whose only desire is to discredit the word of God.
This problem is by no means solved. Even in your link Edwin Yamamuchi says that one of the possibilities is that Luke was in error. This is one where I reserve judgment only because it is possible that some new historical fact will arise - but probably not. But at this moment it does contradict what we know historically - even if Quirinius had some form of duty, in Syria, prior to 6 C.E precisley becuase Luke says that he was governor and not something else.

Now with regard to the translation issues. The one chosen in your link is the worst possible choice according to Daniel Wallace. He says that the issue cannot be resolved with certainty and says that a couple of views are unlikely - yours being one of them.

I will deal with two translations.

First:

'this census was before [the census] which Quirinius, governor of Syria, made.' Or similarly, as Hoehner has it - 'this census was ealier than [the census] when Quirinius was governor of Syria.'

Basically saying that there was two censuses that Quirinus was part of.

Problems:

1) The word 'first', taken as, 'before' and 'earlier', cannot go with Quirinius. As Wallace says 'Quirinius is far removed from 'before' and, in fact, is gen. becuase it is part of a gen. absolute construction.' That is the verse cannot be saying that there was a census before Quirinius was governor of Syria. Wallace goes on to say that 'what must necessarily be supplied in those text is neither necessary nor natural...'

2) It assumes 'this' modifies 'census.' As Wallace says 'since the construction is anarthrous, such a view is almost impossible (becuse when a demonstrative functions attributively to a noun, the noun is almost always articular), a far mor natural translation would be 'This is the first census...' rather than 'this census is...'

Even if we translate 'This is the first census before Quirinius...' it still violates number 1 because you cannot have 'before' going with 'Quirinius.'

Second:

'this census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.'

Basically saying that there was a census before Quirinius was governor in 6 C.E. Quirinius had nothing to do with this census.

Side Note:Why would Luke related a census to Quirinius when Quirinius had nothing to do with the census - why not just state the person to whom the census was taken by or under? Why use Quirinius as a reference point when another more relative reference could have been used?

Problems:

1) Assumes 'first' (before) is regarded as adverbial. This is done in order to dismiss the historical problem.

2) But notice that this translation also violates #2 above.

3) It ignores the concord between 'first' and 'census.' It 9first) functions more likely as adjectivally rather than adverbially.

With that Wallace reserves judgment and says only additional historical evidence can solve this problem. See Daniel B. Wallace 'Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament' p.304-305. He translates the verse as 'this was the first census [taken] when Quirinius was governor of Syria.'

And as such it is still a problem which is not easily solved as many proclaim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top