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.
I've been saying that the gospel writers were shameless in their attempts to portray Jesus as the Messiah, most particularly Matthew and Luke. They did this by cherry-picking Old Testament scriptures that have nothing to do with the Messiah and then attempting to attach some messianic flavor to them to try to convince their readers Jesus was the Messiah.
Both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a template for their own versions of the Jesus story--each adding a "little extra" to spice up their narrative. Here's a perfect example. Here's Mark 1:14-16
Quote:
14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent!” 16 As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.
Now this passage is pretty plain vanilla and says nothing about Jesus moving to the Galilee area, just that he was in the Galilee area. Nazareth was less than a quarter of a kilometer from Galilee so there was no reason for Jesus to pack his carpenter tools onto his U-Haul donkey and move there, and yet Matthew wanted Jesus to move to the area, particularly Capernaum. Why? Because of Isaiah 9, particularly Isaiah,'s mention of "the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali" which Matthew believed was Capernaum.
So here's how Matthew ginned up Mark's passage to be able to squeeze Isaiah into it. In a second we'll see how the passage has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Messiah, yet Matthew wanted to fool his readers into believing it did. Here's how Matthew turns plain vanilla into rainbow sherbert:
Quote:
12 When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he withdrew to Galilee. 13 Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali— 14 to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah:
15 “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles—
16 the people living in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned.”
17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”
18 As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew.
Notice how the ONLY reason Matthew has Jesus MOVING to Capernaum is so he can insert this "prophecy" of Isaiah into his Jesus story to make it "appear" Jesus is fulfilling some obscure scripture out of the Isaiah scrolls. But if we look in the context of what follow the rest of the passage that Matthew doesn't bother to quote we see that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jesus or a Messiah or anything future, except in Matthew's addled mind.
Once again, here's the part Matthew so cleverly cut out
Quote:
“Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles—
16 the people living in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned.”[f]
Now here's what follows:
Quote:
You have enlarged the nation
and increased their joy;
Did Jesus enlarge Israel and increase anyone's joy?
Quote:
For as in the day of Midian’s defeat, you have shattered
the yoke that burdens them,
the bar across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor.
Did Jesus shatter Israel's yoke? And here's the most telling Jesus failure of all: did Jesus shatter the rod of Israel's oppressor, who in Jesus' time was obviously Rome????? No way!!!
What a joke! Or in Matthew's parlance, "What a yoke!"
This is such blatant misuse of scripture it defies all semblance of human logic and rationale, and yet the Christians fall for this malarkey hook, line and sinker simply because their Sunday morning pastor tells them it is so, yet if someone tries to point out Matthew's cunning in here the fundamentalists will be up in arms defending Matthew, yet if they just took off the rose-colored glasses for a moment, set aside their biases and actually examine the scripture and analyze it will see quite clearly it has nothing to do with the future, nothing to do with Jesus, and certainly nothing to do with the Messiah, as it doesn't mention or even a allude to the Messiah. And even if it did, Jesus failed the prophecy miserably.
Such is the kind of guile and dishonesty rampant in the gospels, especially Matthew's. And such is the absolute naïvety and cluelessness of those Christians who believe it.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 08-27-2018 at 07:34 PM..
I've been saying that the gospel writers were shameless in their attempts to portray Jesus as the Messiah, most particularly Matthew and Luke. They did this by cherry-picking Old Testament scriptures that have nothing to do with the Messiah and then attempting to attach some messianic flavor to them to try to convince their readers Jesus was the Messiah.
Both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a template for their own versions of the Jesus story--each adding a "little extra" to spice up their narrative. Here's a perfect example. Here's Mark 1:14-16
Now this passage is pretty plain vanilla and says nothing about Jesus moving to the Galilee area, just that he was in the Galilee area. Nazareth was less than a quarter of a kilometer from Galilee so there was no reason for Jesus to pack his carpenter tools onto his U-Haul donkey and move there, and yet Matthew wanted Jesus to move to the area, particularly Capernaum. Why? Because of Isaiah 9, particularly Isaiah,'s mention of "the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali" which Matthew believed was Capernaum.
So here's how Matthew ginned up Mark's passage to be able to squeeze Isaiah into it. In a second we'll see how the passage has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Messiah, yet Matthew wanted to fool his readers into believing it did. Here's how Matthew turns plain vanilla into rainbow sherbert:
Notice how the ONLY reason Matthew has Jesus MOVING to Capernaum is so he can insert this "prophecy" of Isaiah into his Jesus story to make it "appear" Jesus is fulfilling some obscure scripture out of the Isaiah scrolls. But if we look in the context of what follow the rest of the passage that Matthew doesn't bother to quote we see that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jesus or a Messiah or anything future, except in Matthew's addled mind.
Once again, here's the part Matthew so cleverly cut out
Now here's what follows:
Did Jesus enlarge Israel and increase anyone's joy?
Did Jesus shatter Israel's yoke? And here's the most telling Jesus failure of all: did Jesus shatter the rod of Israel's oppressor, who in Jesus' time was obviously Rome????? No way!!!
What a joke! Or in Matthew's parlance, "What a yoke!"
This is such blatant misuse of scripture it defies all semblance of human logic and rationale, and yet the Christians fall for this malarkey hook, line and sinker simply because their Sunday morning pastor tells them it is so, yet if someone tries to point out Matthew's cunning in here the fundamentalists will be up in arms defending Matthew, yet if they just took off the rose-colored glasses for a moment, set aside their biases and actually examine the scripture and analyze it will see quite clearly it has nothing to do with the future, nothing to do with Jesus, and certainly nothing to do with the Messiah, as it doesn't mention or even a allude to the Messiah. And even if it did, Jesus failed the prophecy miserably.
Such is the kind of guile and dishonesty rampant in the gospels, especially Matthew's. And such is the absolute naïvety and cluelessness of those Christians who believe it.
I think the theology has evolved to a point that many don’t know and/or don’t care what’s wtitten in the Bible in an effort to try to see if it logically makes sense to them?
It’s more of a verbal or ideological belief now. And the core is,
“Believe in Jesus as your savior and a red carpet welcome is awaiting you in a paradise (that doesn’t have sex)
If I may peddle My Theory yet again. Mark as we now have it is not the gospel that Matthew and Luke (and certainly not John) based their gospels on, but a common original 'synoptic'/ proto - Mark that they all three used. Mark actually made a number of additions of his own which (apart from Pilate's surprise') are minor additions, like the hired servants in the boat.
Matthew of course, as you say, adds a lot of his own material, very much reflecting his interest in the OT (if I may use the term) though, as you noted, he doesn't appear to understand the Jewish context. In fact it is juststuff to quotemine in order to fabricate 'prophecies' for Jesus to 'fulfil'.
I've been saying that the gospel writers were shameless in their attempts to portray Jesus as the Messiah, most particularly Matthew and Luke. They did this by cherry-picking Old Testament scriptures that have nothing to do with the Messiah and then attempting to attach some messianic flavor to them to try to convince their readers Jesus was the Messiah.
Both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a template for their own versions of the Jesus story--each adding a "little extra" to spice up their narrative. Here's a perfect example. Here's Mark 1:14-16
Now this passage is pretty plain vanilla and says nothing about Jesus moving to the Galilee area, just that he was in the Galilee area. Nazareth was less than a quarter of a kilometer from Galilee so there was no reason for Jesus to pack his carpenter tools onto his U-Haul donkey and move there, and yet Matthew wanted Jesus to move to the area, particularly Capernaum. Why? Because of Isaiah 9, particularly Isaiah,'s mention of "the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali" which Matthew believed was Capernaum.
So here's how Matthew ginned up Mark's passage to be able to squeeze Isaiah into it. In a second we'll see how the passage has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Messiah, yet Matthew wanted to fool his readers into believing it did. Here's how Matthew turns plain vanilla into rainbow sherbert:
Notice how the ONLY reason Matthew has Jesus MOVING to Capernaum is so he can insert this "prophecy" of Isaiah into his Jesus story to make it "appear" Jesus is fulfilling some obscure scripture out of the Isaiah scrolls. But if we look in the context of what follow the rest of the passage that Matthew doesn't bother to quote we see that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jesus or a Messiah or anything future, except in Matthew's addled mind.
Once again, here's the part Matthew so cleverly cut out
Now here's what follows:
Did Jesus enlarge Israel and increase anyone's joy?
Did Jesus shatter Israel's yoke? And here's the most telling Jesus failure of all: did Jesus shatter the rod of Israel's oppressor, who in Jesus' time was obviously Rome????? No way!!!
What a joke! Or in Matthew's parlance, "What a yoke!"
This is such blatant misuse of scripture it defies all semblance of human logic and rationale, and yet the Christians fall for this malarkey hook, line and sinker simply because their Sunday morning pastor tells them it is so, yet if someone tries to point out Matthew's cunning in here the fundamentalists will be up in arms defending Matthew, yet if they just took off the rose-colored glasses for a moment, set aside their biases and actually examine the scripture and analyze it will see quite clearly it has nothing to do with the future, nothing to do with Jesus, and certainly nothing to do with the Messiah, as it doesn't mention or even a allude to the Messiah. And even if it did, Jesus failed the prophecy miserably.
Such is the kind of guile and dishonesty rampant in the gospels, especially Matthew's. And such is the absolute naïvety and cluelessness of those Christians who believe it.
Considering Matthew was inspired to write that, and was correct in what he stated, what's the point? Do you have one, or is this just a lame attempt at ginning up someone else's unfounded objection to the text?
I've been saying that the gospel writers were shameless in their attempts to portray Jesus as the Messiah, most particularly Matthew and Luke. They did this by cherry-picking Old Testament scriptures that have nothing to do with the Messiah and then attempting to attach some messianic flavor to them to try to convince their readers Jesus was the Messiah.
Both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a template for their own versions of the Jesus story--each adding a "little extra" to spice up their narrative. Here's a perfect example. Here's Mark 1:14-16
Now this passage is pretty plain vanilla and says nothing about Jesus moving to the Galilee area, just that he was in the Galilee area. Nazareth was less than a quarter of a kilometer from Galilee so there was no reason for Jesus to pack his carpenter tools onto his U-Haul donkey and move there, and yet Matthew wanted Jesus to move to the area, particularly Capernaum. Why? Because of Isaiah 9, particularly Isaiah,'s mention of "the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali" which Matthew believed was Capernaum.
While you are correct about Matthew rewriting Mark, you have made a few errors, one based on using a modern reading of a text that was later modified.
First, Nazareth is in Galilee, it is not near the border.
Second, there is only one mention of Nazareth in Mark, and the evidence is very strong that it was added later.
Third, Mark 2:1 states quiet clearly the home of Jesus was Capernaum, so this may have been intended right from the beginning.
Why Galilee? The unknown author of Mark was from Paul's anti temple, anti Jerusalem sect, and the rulers in Jerusalem ruled Galilee for only a short time during the OT period. Mark is also rewriting the story of Elijah and Elisha from 1 and 2 Kings, which starts in Galilee and ends in Jerusalem.
While you are correct about Matthew rewriting Mark, you have made a few errors, one based on using a modern reading of a text that was later modified.
First, Nazareth is in Galilee, it is not near the border.
Second, there is only one mention of Nazareth in Mark, and the evidence is very strong that it was added later.
Third, Mark 2:1 states quiet clearly the home of Jesus was Capernaum, so this may have been intended right from the beginning.
Why Galilee? The unknown author of Mark was from Paul's anti temple, anti Jerusalem sect, and the rulers in Jerusalem ruled Galilee for only a short time during the OT period. Mark is also rewriting the story of Elijah and Elisha from 1 and 2 Kings, which starts in Galilee and ends in Jerusalem.
That post is just DRIPPING with anti-religion rhetoric and bias.
That post is just DRIPPING with anti-religion rhetoric and bias.
Actually, I saw Harry's post as detached, matter of fact and well researched....
no anti-religion at all, as in other posts by members here that are dripping with it.
Actually, I saw Harry's post as detached, matter of fact and well researched....
no anti-religion at all, as in other posts by members here that are dripping with it.
Considering Matthew was inspired to write that, and was correct in what he stated, what's the point? Do you have one, or is this just a lame attempt at ginning up someone else's unfounded objection to the text?
Your unfounded objection is ironically misrepresenting the findings of historians (both Christian and none Christian) as 'unfounded objection'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
That post is just DRIPPING with anti-religion rhetoric and bias.
The irony is much of my work agrees with (and sometimes based on) the findings of Christian historians.
That fact that all you can do is dismiss anything you do not like as 'anti-religion rhetoric and bias' indicates you have NO evidence for your position.
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 08-28-2018 at 08:30 AM..
Reason: Missed a punkt.
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.
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.
No way!!!
yet again. Mark as we now have it is not the gospel that Matthew and Luke (and certainly not John) based their gospels on, but a common original 'synoptic'/ proto - Mark that they all three used. Mark actually made a number of additions of his own which (apart from Pilate's surprise') are minor additions, like the hired servants in the boat.
