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 04-19-2012, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,935,861 times
Reputation: 255

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
As a matter of fact, AW (we have to be fair about this so as to avoid handing a cheap point to the apologists ) There were other people called Jesus (Yeshua/Joshua) including the one in Josephus who toured the walls of Jerusalem wailing 'Woe, woe!' until the Roman army catapults finally got their range.

But of course (as I have argued in connection with the Tacitus historical reference) how many Jesuses have been executed by Pilate? Really only one, so, if some gospel writer had claimed that Jesus was executed by Pilate at the request of the ruling King Herod Agrippa, that would clearly be wrong.

Thus the Theudas who attracted his followers and was killed, while not utterly lock - down (if Acts had said by Fadus or even traipsing to the Jordan hoping the river would part, that would make the identification certain) does seem unlikely to have had many namesakes who did the same kind of thing thing - and managed to miss being mentioned in the history books while doing it.
RESPONSE:

That's my point. There may have been other Jesuses, but it's clear which one is being spoken of in the gospels.

There may have been other Thadeuses too, but only one leading an uprising during this period.

So Cliff's claim that the Acts of the Apostles is referring to another Thadeus is without merit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-21-2012, 07:02 PM
 
1,534 posts, read 1,592,460 times
Reputation: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
Mshipmate, I do not even think 'word play' matters (whatever that means). Let us grant that:

1) Matthew meant a single prophet (not prophets) 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.
Quote:
Mshipmate, I do not even think 'word play' matters (whatever that means).
You show by your remarks/comments that you don't even understand the "Book" or the writings you are crtiquing.

The word play doesn't matter to whom? You?

The word netzer word-plays with haNatzari, "The Nazarene" and haNdtsarim, "the Netxarim."

Paul is called the ringleader of the Nazarenes:Acts 24:5

The word netzer [spout of branch] is also the root word for the City of the Branch, Nazareth.

Messiah called Himself a Nazarene [John 18:5; acts 22:8]

Quote:
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.


Isa. 11:1"There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots,"


In Hebrew idiom it is written thus, "There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root." " (Jerome, Letter 47:7)

Also Note Matthew says spoken, [not written]. The word spoken is 'rheo' and properly means to break silence.

So why did Matthew say"prophets?" It's an example of combining the words of several [different] prophets.
so we are not looking for a single statement, but a combined meaning.

This is confirmed by Nathanel's comment in John 1:46, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Implying a term of contempt. Also spoken of in Isa. 53:2,3

So Messiah was called a Nazarene when ppl looked down on Him with contempt.

However Messiah wore the 'name' with pride: [John 18:5] See also Acts 22:8

Quote:
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).
Messiah has a Name; Y'shua.

The fact He wasn't called Immanuel is no different than the other names He was referred to and yet not actually called.

The prophetic fulfillment was in the meaning of Emmanuel, "God with us" and is implied throughout the NT by His life and by the disciple John in Jn,1:14
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2012, 07:17 AM
 
2,756 posts, read 2,170,309 times
Reputation: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
RESPONSE:

That's my point. There may have been other Jesuses, but it's clear which one is being spoken of in the gospels.

There may have been other Thadeuses too, but only one leading an uprising during this period.

So Cliff's claim that the Acts of the Apostles is referring to another Thadeus is without merit.
~ There was 3 King Herods in the same family secession of Kings
from the time Jesus was born till He was killed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2012, 07:46 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,935,861 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevelationWriter View Post
~ There was 3 King Herods in the same family secession of Kings
from the time Jesus was born till He was killed.
RESPONSE:

Absolutley not! Herod's sons: Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip were not kings, nor were they allowed to call themselves kings.

They would have been crucified like that fellow in the New Testament who was called the "King of the Jews."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2012, 08:05 PM
 
5,495 posts, read 4,399,555 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by mshipmate View Post
You show by your remarks/comments that you don't even understand the "Book" or the writings you are crtiquing.
Sorry, but it is you who does not understand my post precisely because the things which you responded with have already been pointed out and acknowledged. Add to this the fact that most of your responses are irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

Examples of irrelevancy:

Quote:
Paul is called the ringleader of the Nazarenes:Acts 24:5

The word netzer word-plays with haNatzari, "The Nazarene" and haNdtsarim, "the Netxarim."

The word netzer [spout of branch] is also the root word for the City of the Branch, Nazareth.

Messiah called Himself a Nazarene [John 18:5; acts 22:8]

In Hebrew idiom it is written thus, "There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root." " (Jerome, Letter 47:7)

Also Note Matthew says spoken, [not written]. The word spoken is 'rheo' and properly means to break silence.

So Messiah was called a Nazarene when ppl looked down on Him with contempt.

However Messiah wore the 'name' with pride: [John 18:5] See also Acts 22:8

Messiah has a Name; Y'shua.
Quote:
The word play doesn't matter to whom? You?
The point was mainly about the sufficiency of Matthew’s methodology and it ability to satisfy a strong correspondence to the Hebrew Bible to have any apologetic or evidentiary value.

When I said word-play does not matter I was referring to the above point. The fact that Matthew uses word-play, as you described, says nothing about determining if the OT verse speaks about Jesus precisely because it is a weak post-hoc attempt by Matthew to ‘find’ something, anything, that satisfies his present belief that Jesus is the Messiah and certain facts about his place of origin – Nazareth - the link is weak and spurious for the task at hand.

Since when is this methodological interpretation, you call word-play, sufficient and adequate to prove that Jesus fulfilled a verse like Is.11:1? Only your theological bias would lend such power to that methodology.

There are 3 main issues surrounding this 'word-play':

1) Netzer – This is translated as the Branch in Is.11:1 and is a Title of the Messiah elsewhere. This is a metaphor for a descendent of Jesse and David.

2) Nazareth – This is a city which has no correspondence in the Hebrew Bible.

3) Nazarene – A person who was from Nazareth.

Isaiah 11:1 spoke about a ruler, the Messiah, coming from Jesse – a Branch. That is he is a descendent of Jesse. Certainly Matthew does not need to use this verse to prove Jesus is a descendent of Jesse and by extension David – he already has given us the genealogy in Chapter 1. Also, everyone knew that the Messiah was to be from Bethlehem and Matthew already gives us the OT verse relating to that city. So the question remains why does Matthew suppossedly link Is.11:1, a reference of a descendant of Jesse, to a city called Nazareth and is this link sufficient to compel us to believe that Jesus is fulfilling prophecy?

Matthew says, quit clearly, that the prophets said that Messiah would be a Nazarene and that the proof of this is that Jesus went to dwell in Nazareth in order to fulfill these prophets. But nowhere in the Hebrew Bible does it say anything about the Messiah being from a city called Nazareth or being called a Nazarene. The only link, in the case of Isaiah, is the similar root of those terms. This is a very weak correspondence especially if one is trying to prove something as significant as someone being the Messiah.

So why did Matthew link the city of Nazareth with an OT verse about a descendent of Jesse and David particularly when the city of David was Bethlehem? Follow Closely!

1) Everybody knows Jesus was from Nazareth and that it was looked down upon as an insignificant little town. Thank you for showing that fact by way of John 1:46 – ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth.’

2) Everyone also knows that the Messiah is to be from Bethlehem – Micah 5:2.

Mathew tries to reconcile these facts and the only way he does it is by creating the narrative prior to Jesus’ ministry. As such he is contradicting Luke and using a word-play on the root of Nazareth – netzer (according to you) - which is only found in Is.11:1 and conceptually elsewhere as a descendent of Jesse and David - See Is.4:2; Jer.24:5; 33:15; Zech.3:8; and 6:12 – but what does this have to do with a city called Nazareth, especially when all of these other verses listed use semah not netzer? This is why I granted you the idea of prophets rather than singular prophet because it does not matter in regard to my point. Frankly, as I stated in my previous post this is Matthew playing fast and loose with the OT in order to reconcile facts that cannot be done away with – it is a very weak correspondence and insufficient to state or prove that Jesus in the one in question. There are two ways to think about what Matthew is trying to do – one based on Hebrew and the other on Greek. As I stated before Matthew seems to be using typology – in this case probably with Samson – but that is another problem – who can really know. Samson was a Nazarite – one set apart by God for the salvation of Israel against their enemy the Philistines. Matthew applies this type to Jesus just like every other non-Messianic verse in his attempts to narrate the story of Christ prior to his ministry, whether it’s Immanuel, Egypt, or The Slaughter.

According to the TDNT:Billerbeck offers the following solution acc. to the Rabb. rule of interpretation Al-tiqri, which allows a word to be replaced by an equivalent… But apart from the substitution this does not carry with it any connection of signification, but is a pun which only experts in Rabbinic interpretation can unravel. Mt., however, was trying to make himself understood by Gk. readers. If, then, it is possible to find a serviceable explanation in Gk. or LXX terms, this deserves precedence. Such an explanation is offered by the similarity of Ναζωραος[Nazarene] and ναζιραος (Nazirite), which was familiar to Mt.’s readers from the prophecy concerning Samson in Ju. 13:5.'

This explanation solves the use of the Greek ‘z’ for the Hebrew ‘s.’ As such it is not a word play off of netzer but of nazarite. Of course for this to work we must assume that the Greek audience and Matthew likened the Book of Judges to prophecy. Furthermore, as to my point, and more importantly, finding an explanation, of Matthew’s methodology, means nothing in showing or proving Jesus as Messiah or the story in Matthew’s narrative as fact. And this is all you have attempted to do – and your explanation is not even the best nor is Matthew’s methodology satisfying for any modern apologetic value.

The difference between Luke and Matthew:

1) Matthew tries to get Jesus out of Bethlehem and into Nazareth. Matthew uses the Magi and Herod’s murderous personality to frighten them off into Egypt only to return to Nazareth because of Herod’s son. This is why Matthew lays out his prophecies in the order he does – Immanuel (Is.7:14); Bethlehem (Micah 5:2); Egypt (Hosea 11:1); Slaughter (Jer.31:15); and Nazareth/Nazarene (???).

2) Luke tries to get Jesus out of Nazareth and into Bethlehem. Luke uses the Census under Quirinius.

It is interesting that by doing so they not only contradict each other but history as we know it.

They contradict each other on two main points:

1) The implied starting point (the city) and how long they resided there (See #1 above). Matthew implies that Joseph and Mary are already living in Bethlehem only to leave to Egypt because the Magi inadvertently give Jesus’ location, Bethlehem, away (You would think if God could guide them by a star surely he could guide them away from Herod). They then leave to go to Egypt and want to return to their home in Judea but are warned again not to go there so they go to Nazareth – Abracadabra Matthew gets them from Bethlehem to Nazareth. Luke, on the other hand, has Joseph and Mary starting out in Nazareth and via a decree they are forced to spend a short time in Bethlehem where Jesus is born only to return to Nazareth via Jerusalem after Mary has completed her purification according to the Law.

2) The explicit reference to the flight into Egypt and return to Nazareth. Luke makes no mention of such a flight and makes no room for such a flight according to his narrative.

Matthew seems to be working around two facts:

1) An OT scripture that says the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and

2) A present (the time Matthew is writing) historical fact (according to everyone’s knowledge) that Jesus was from Nazareth.

If he is going to give an account of Jesus’ life prior to his ministry beginning (the time when everyone became familiar with Jesus) then he is going to have to incorporate these two facts in his narrative of that time. And in order to give weight to his narrative he is going to have to ‘find’, ‘interpret’, and ‘apply’ OT passages to either an actual historical fact or apply a historical fact to the OT scripture. This is exactly what he does in the case of Bethlehem and Nazareth – he uses a weak and suspect methodology besides seemingly inventing history - but that is another story.

So next time you accuse someone of not understanding the ‘Book’ they are criticizing I suggest you take some of your own medicine and try to understand the points of your critics before accusing others.


Quote:
The fact He wasn't called Immanuel is no different than the other names He was referred to and yet not actually called.
Only it was prophesided that his name would be called Immanuel. The greater point is that the prophecy had nothing to do with the Messiah. Matthew is applying it - it is typology.

Quote:
The prophetic fulfillment was in the meaning of Emmanuel, "God with us" and is implied throughout the NT by His life and by the disciple John in Jn,1:14
Yes 'God with us' is exactly what Matthew picked-up on believing that Jesus was the Messiah that would save Israel from their enimies just like the prophecy had God save Judah from Rezin and Pekah. But like I satated before how is this fulfilling aphrophecy about Jesus - it is not - it is Matthew interpreting and applying - it is a typological method.

As stated before when the goal posts are so wide and flexable you can make anything 'fulfill' anyhting else - and Matthew uses some pretty wide goal posts.

Last edited by Shiloh1; 04-22-2012 at 08:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 03:27 AM
 
34,446 posts, read 8,865,664 times
Reputation: 4783
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevelationWriter View Post
~ There was 3 King Herods in the same family secession of Kings
from the time Jesus was born till He was killed.
Actually just two. Herod 'the great' and Herod Agrippa. The other Herodian rulers were Tetrarchs, as they didn't rule over all of the Judean provinces.

That's a detail of course, as your argument is surely that one could easily be confused with another.

In fact, while an apologist might be ignorant enough to argue that Luke's nativity (or perhaps I should say Matthew's..) could be true because Herod was still king in the time of the apostles, a quick explanation of the history would show that he was simply displaying his ignorance.

While negative evidence is hard to disprove, an earlier Theudas leading an uprising of the kind described in Josephus but located in Herodian times, mentioned by nobody else but Luke -who inexplicably didn't have Gamaliel take the more recent Theudas revolt as his example - is just too improbable.

What's more, Luke has been caught out in other slips and errors, not to say falsehoods. Under the 'clean hands' principle, one has to prefer the theory that this was again something that he got wrong.

The implications are useful, because it tells us something about Luke and how he wrote his gospel. He was a follower of Paul and his biographer, effectively. But tinkering here and there makes us wonder whether he was apt to rework his material to suit his purposes - as in the escape from Damascus to avoid the Nabatean army being changed to a swipe at the Jews.

Luke could also have been a follower of Jesus or knew someone who was, but in fact his shambolic nativity and his poor geography shows that he wasn't. He was a historian, though not a very reliable one, since he misunderstood the census and got Gamaliel's Theudas wrong with his rather throw -away line 'after him came Judas the galilean'. Just a slip, but one that shows that Acts is unreliable.

I'll mention another point that supports this. Acts 10. 9 "About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” 14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven."

Skipping the absurdity of this ludicrous vision, what it suggests is that, up to this time, Peter and all the other apostles, presumably, were observant Jews, keeping the dietary laws, and presumably all the Fasting and Sabbath observances - also while they were following Jesus.

But, given what Jesus had been arguing during his life about the irrelevance of kosher- food laws, sabbath observance and the irrelevance of the temple, how could that be? How could Peter have still been in such doubt that he'd reject God's offer of Prawn cocktail? Remember this wasn't the bumbling ignorant fisherman of the Galilee, but a recipient of the holy Spirit, having all knowledge and power.

The answer is obvious. It is another of Luke's made -up stories designed to push along the Pauline argument that the Mosaic Law was irrelevant and only Faith in Jesus could save. In doing so he forgot that he'd made a slip, because Jesus had already said so and Peter shouldn't need to be told again, but that's the point. Acts is unreliable because such slips show it to be so.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-23-2012 at 03:59 AM.. Reason: Matthew, rather...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 07:33 AM
 
2,756 posts, read 2,170,309 times
Reputation: 566
- "As Herod the great became ill a struggle for seccession to his throne emerged within his family of 10 marriages and 15 children....

...Because his son Antipater poisioned Heriod's mind against
Archelaus & Phillip.

- Herod chose a younger son Antipas
as sole seccessor to his throne....

- And later changed his will making Archelaus King." [Bible Dictionary]

"But when Joseph heard that
Archelaus was Reigning In Judea in place of his father Herod,
he was afraid to go forth; and being warned by God in a dream.
Joseph withdrew into the parts of Galilee..." - Matt.2:22 [greek]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 07:37 AM
 
Location: US
26,248 posts, read 13,909,589 times
Reputation: 1591
Quote:
Originally Posted by mshipmate View Post
Third, they were in the temple; not a house. How do we know this? The same Greek word "oikos" translated "house" in (Acts 2:2), was actually translated "Temple" in (Luke 11:51).
The Greek Yoghurt???...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 07:49 AM
 
Location: US
26,248 posts, read 13,909,589 times
Reputation: 1591
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
The story of Paulís conversion on the road to Damascus found in Acts of the Apostles doesn't appear anywhere in Paulís own writings

In fact, what happened after Paulís visit to Damascus, is contradicted by Paulís letters.

According to Acts 9, following Paul's conversion he spent a little time in Damascus and then traveled to Jereusalem where he met the apostles

Acts 9:23-26 "23 After some time had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, 24but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night so that they might kill him; 25but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall,* lowering him in a basket.26 When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. (NRSV

But Paul's own epistle to the Galations tells us:

Galatians 1: 15 -18 "But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me,* so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen (NRSV

So did Paul get lowered over the wall and escape Damascus and travel to Jerusalem, or did he go to Arabia and spend three years there

Here we have a contradiction in two writings both of which are supposed to be inspired and thus inerrant.

I don't see a contradiction here...The writer in acts hit some key points...Paul, writing of himself, was more detailed...Simple...If you look at 9, you will see that, obviously Paul had made a name for himself, the Jews were trying to kill him, the timing here may well be after he had spent time in Arabia...It seems that after Arabia, then his return to demascus, where the Jews where trying to kill him, then he went up to Jerusalem...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2012, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Lower east side of Toronto
10,589 posts, read 10,315,657 times
Reputation: 9271
Pilate wrote...King of Judea.......He knew that Jesus was the heir to the throne. Killing a king would cause problems so Pilate was reluctant to execute Jesus..Those that wanted him dead were not natives of Judea but interlopers who were involved in a land grab...Paul is not to be listened to- only the words that came from the mouth of Christ are relevant...Most think that Paul who cluttered up most of the NT with his letters....Never met the man personally- Most assume that he sat at the table of Christ....and was his friend...Paul was a user.
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