Matthew's big blunder - and what we can learn fro it

[Meriweather]

first, reporters don't claim to be the inspired word of God, and when they make a mistake, there's usually a retraction printed.

Second, writing materials weren't all that uncommon in the day. In fact, there were well over 200 versions of the Gospel that were floating around by 300 AD before the Church decided that only the four we see were "Canon".

Reporters do claim they are reporting the truth. I'm not saying writing materials were uncommon. I am saying they were not prolific or widely used in the general population. Word of mouth was more commonly used, partly because reading and writing were not common skills of the time.

 

[HaShev]

Christians believe that Jesus "fulfilled" OT prophecy. But in fact it's not prophecy fulfilled but prophecy historicized after the fact. The "fulfilled prophecies" were retrojected into the gospel writers' stories in order to flesh out the Jesus character who they knew so little about. After all, these writers wrote decades after Jesus died, and knew almost nothing about him. In their zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, they searched the Old Testament for anything (sometimes just phrases) that could possibly be construed as messianic prophecies, and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those so-called prophecies.

How do we know that? How do we know that the stories weren't actual records of actual fulfillment of prophecy? Well, lots of reasons, but one, in particular, stands out, at least to me. It's sometimes referred to as "Matthew's big blunder", and this blunder, I'm afraid, gives the game away.

In the story of the triumphal entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, Mark, Luke and John all say that Jesus entered the city riding on a donkey. But Matthew has Jesus enter the city straddling TWO animals, not one - a donkey AND a colt! Here's the passage in Matthew:

Matthew 21:1-7
Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, AND a colt with her. Loose THEM and bring THEM to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of THEM,’ and immediately he will send THEM.”

All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet [Zechariah], saying:

“Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’”

So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey AND the colt, laid THEIR clothes on THEM, and set Him on THEM.

The reason Matthew has Jesus on TWO animals instead of one is that he misunderstood the prophecy (quoted above) to refer to two animals. But this is an error on his part [yes, an error. You can throw out any belief in “inerrancy” right here!] This is a common occurrence in the OT of something called a parallelism, where the same idea is stated twice with slightly different wording, but actually means the same thing. In this case the passage in Zechariah is NOT referring to two animals. The donkey and the colt represent the same animal, and the other gospel writers all understood this, which is why they had Jesus enter the city on a lone donkey. Matthew didn't get it though. He thought the Zechariah passage literally meant TWO animals, so that's what he put in his story. It’s rather comical when you to try to picture Jesus straddling two animals!

Stunt rider Jesus to the rescue!

What does this tell us? What conclusions can we draw from this?

Here’s what we can conclude:

1) Whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew could not possibly have been an eyewitness. If he was, he would have known that Jesus entered the city on just one donkey, as he would have seen it with his own eyes.

2) Not only was the author not a witness, but he did not get his information from anyone else who was a witness, for the same reason as above.

3) Since he was neither a witness nor an acquaintance of a witness, there is only one way he could have gotten his information – from his own imagination – with the help of the Old Testament! Of course, he got the story from Mark, but then he changed Mark’s version of the story in order to reflect what he thought it should say in order to make the prophecy come true. It is a conscious act of fraud in order to make the text fit his own personal opinion about what must have happened. It is prophecy fulfillment invented, not recorded, and this is most likely how all of the gospels were written.

There’s an old story that goes like this: “While traveling through a forest, a person noticed a circle marked on a tree with an arrow shot perfectly into the center. A few yards away he noticed several more targets, each with arrows in the center. Later, he met the talented archer and he asked him, "How did you become such an expert that you always get your arrows into the center of the bullseye?" "It's not difficult," responded the archer, "First I shoot the arrow and then I draw the circle."”


That’s how the gospels were written!


And Matthew's blunder, among other things, gives the game away.

The Church admits the books are not written
by the men they are named after.
Matthew could not have been written by a Jew who would not mistake the gender use of Micah 5 excluding it from being a
place.
The verse in Micah is in the MASCULINE GENDER andbirthplaces are Feminine, as anyone who has studied Hebrew grammar knows.
So a Jew would know Bethlehem Ephratah is a person & not a town, hence lineage born out of Bethlehem son o rgrandson of Ephratah, which is why context says clan.
No Jew would take a verse like Micah 5 about lineage and write it tio be about a town.
They admitted in their text that they were
gonna place him into the old text;

Luke 24:44-45 "Then he said to them, 'everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms.' (-Meaning, fit me in every verse to make me out to be the one)Thus They rewrote Matthew 1.1 through 4:11 to create his Genesis (Luke 1:5 - 4:13). He leaned on Mark 1:21 through 3:19 to create his Exodus (Luke 4:14 - 6:19). He quarried Matthew in rather unique ways to develop his readings for Leviticus (Luke 6:20 - 8:25). He transcribed Mark 4 through 9 with some rather gaping omissions to provide appropriate readings to correspond with the material found in Numbers (Luke 8:26 - 9:50). Finally, in his most imaginative piece of writing, Luke created the expanded journey section of his gospel (Luke 9:51 - 18:14) to correspond to the readings from Deuteronomy. In order to show Jesus as the fulfillment of the Torah, Luke wrote his infancy story against the background of the Book of Genesis.
The blood atonement borrowed from Deut 21.
Jeremiah 13:13-14 was used in emulating out of it’s context of time and message to create a disturbing threat in Matthew 10: 34-40 and Thomas Verse 16.
2Samuel 1:10 &1:12 were re rewritten in the crucifixion scene of Jesus to be about him not Israel.
Even 1Sa 5:3 &5:4 mirrors his crucifixion that was written to emulate these verses about the Philistine deity “Dagon” he represents. And read II Kings 4: 42 - 43(sound familiar to the loaves of bread story placed upon Jesus?)
Not only did they rehash text that was already in the bible, but they also manipulate text that their teachings are based on making excuses for not fulfilling things or for problems that arise like his death etc.
Too much evidence to fit here.....

 

[JoeB131]

First, what is the most recent date Christians tortured or killed a Jew over Jesus being the Messiah?

1945. thanks for asking.

Matthew and Luke include stories of Jesus birth and birthplace. Uncorroborated stories don't make them outright lies, it simply makes them uncorroborated accounts that you are now (two thousand years later) labeling as "lies".

10 years apart with different reasons as to why he was there.. neither of which is very plausible.

While the Gospels do relate accounts of Jesus saying he was sent (anointed) by God, he also seems to make it clear he was not the type of Messiah Jews were dreaming of. But let's go with Jesus confirming he was the Messiah sent by God.

Do we have any account of Jesus saying he was born in Bethlehem? Do we have any account of Jesus saying he lived in a town called Nazareth? In other words, even if you believe that the birth accounts written by Matthew and Luke are intentional lies, not just uncorroborated stories, how do "lies" about his birth, written decades after Jesus confirmed he is the Messiah sent by God, make the original claim dubious?

Do we have any first person account of Jesus EVEN EXISTING?

If Jesus were a valid messiah, his followers wouldn't have to make shit up about virgin births (another misreading of the OT, but I won't even get into that) to make him seem more miraculous.

 

[JoeB131]

Reporters do claim they are reporting the truth. I'm not saying writing materials were uncommon. I am saying they were not prolific or widely used in the general population. Word of mouth was more commonly used, partly because reading and writing were not common skills of the time.

So why is it more plausible they were talking about a real person than just making some shit up?

 

[Meriweather]

1945. thanks for asking.

Uh-uh. This does not match your own criteria that Jews were put to death over Jesus not being the Messiah. For the Nazi's the 1940s were a race issue, not one of belief. Plus, I asked for a specific case where a Jew was killed because s/he did not agree Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[Meriweather]

So why is it more plausible they were talking about a real person than just making some shit up?

Again, what is your point? If it is you don't believe Jesus existed, fine, you don't believe Jesus existed. Anything else you want to discuss at this time?

 

[JoeB131]

Uh-uh. This does not match your own criteria that Jews were put to death over Jesus not being the Messiah. For the Nazi's the 1940s were a race issue, not one of belief. Plus, I asked for a specific case where a Jew was killed because s/he did not agree Jesus was the Messiah.

Uh, when the Nazis put the Jews to death, they announced, "This is for killing Christ". They wore belt buckles that said "Gott mit Uns" - God with Us. And the Catholic Church was helping them the whole time! trying to cover it up now, and even make that son of a bitch Pius XII a saint. How fucked up is that?

Again, what is your point? If it is you don't believe Jesus existed, fine, you don't believe Jesus existed. Anything else you want to discuss at this time?

But let's take another "JC" from the same Time Period who was eventually worshiped as a God- Julius Caesar.

We know exactly when and where he was born. 13 July 100 BCE in Rome

We know exactly when and where he died, 15 March 44 BCE, in the Roman Senate House.

These are documented in both contemporary sources and historians.

See how that works? Real people can be documented.

Fake ones made up can't be.

And even though we know Julius Caesar was a real person, no one really thinks today he became a God after he died. Because that would be silly.

 

[HaShev]

Created legends or propaganda uses enough reality to make it seem real.
However, when using compilations of many figures and myths into creating the image it becomes obvious of the compiling, simply by way of needing new names and dates for the figure based on many. And contradictions appear showing more then one home town, age till death 33 -the other claim closer to 50 (in John), more then one profession- job one carpenter the other fisherman. Compilation exposes dual blame of both Rome and Jewish elect, persecution methods-both stoned/hanged but another crucified, rode both a horse and a donkey, mother had kids or never had kids,
Paul and James seemingly argue that each is worshiping another christ then they are.
One claims messiahship the other claims to be like unto son of man to come 3rd person tense, eras lived in= one claims to be in the time of King Herod (died 4bc) and Lysanias (died 35bc) another in the Pilate A.D. era but the son of Mary existed in 100bc =exposed fraud.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JoeB, you are just unhappy that billions take your kind of carping and drop it in the waste basked.

 

[ninja007]

Were one or two animals brought to Jesus? | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

 

[Picaro]

THE NAZI PRIMER: Official Handbook for Schooling the Hitler Youth
Translated from the Original German 1938

CONTENTS
Introduction: Factual Outlook on Life – page 7
I. The Unlikeness of Men – page 9
Bodily difference-spiritual unlikeness—disregard of these facts—opponents of
the race idea—bases of their opposition—truth wins.
II. The German Races – page 11
Concept of race-peoples are mixed races—the German races—bodily and
spiritual characteristics of the Nordic, Phalic, Western, Dinaric, Eastern, East
Baltic races— proportion of races—the German people certainly Nordic.
III. Race Formation: Heredity and Environment – page 21
Study of heredity—Gregor Mendel—Mendel's laws (I) law of uniformity (II) law of
diversity—dominant and recessive characteristics (III) law of independence—
inherited picture not always similar to apparent picture—species change—study
of evolution—Charles Darwin—environmental influences not inheritable—
hereditary transmission—changeability of bearers of heredity—formation of
races.
IV. Heredity and Race Fostering – page 31
The hereditary stream—task of heredity fostering—heredity diseases—
concealed hereditary processes—dangers of inbreeding—"family tree"
research—the less worthy—threatening increase—costs of care—duty of
interfering—laws fostering heredity—justification for eliminations—selection of
the sound—measures pertaining thereto—socialistic selection—the sense of
race fostering—race legislation—Jews in the German Reich-not different in
quality but in kind—protection of our racial being.
V. Population Policy – page 39
Population fluctuations—real growth—"congestion" of the blood—
superannuation—decline of births—consequences of urbanization—inevitable
death of a people? —infiltration—causes for the falling off of births—spiritual
counteraction—economic countermeasures—protection of those rich in
children—fostering marriages—results up to this time—rise in births not yet
significant.
VI. Man and Earth – page 45
Fate of peoples determined by blood—influence of territory—the art of the
statesman—attachment of the German people to the soil—uprooting forces—
economic and political consequences—back to the natural order—reciprocal
action between a people and its territory.
VII. The German Territory – page 47
Central position in Europe—historical tasks—defense of Europe—instrument of
culture—advantages and disadvantages of the central position—the threefold
form—political area—population area—culture area.
VIII. The German Population Area – page 51
The Nordic territory—the Germanic territory—the ages of bronze, iron, and the
Romans—migrations of the Germanic peoples—region from which the German
people went out—winning the territory around the Danube—frontier districts on
the Elbe—crucial uprisings—the procession toward the east—reconquering of:
Holstein and Mecklenburg, the Mark of Brandenburg, of Saxony—the Czech
wedge—settlement of Pomerania—Silesia—the Polish bulwark—struggle for
East Prussia—the eastern front made safe by Prussia—historical achievement—
possessive right of the German people.
IX. The German Culture Area – page 63
German influence in the east—Germans abroad—origin and development—their
cultural significance—migration overseas—Germans in: North America, South
America, Australia—the German colonies—first attempts—Southwest Africa,
German East Africa, Cameroons, Togoland, South Sea possessions—lies about
colonies.
X. The Political Area of the German Folk – page 71
The Reich of the Middle Ages—its downfall—Switzerland breaks loose—Holland
falls off—origin of Belgium—"neutralization" of Luxemburg—separation of
Austria—independence of Lichtenstein—France's "Thrust to the Rhine"—frontier
struggles in the east and southeast—the dictate of Versailles—territorial losses of
the German Reich—dictate of Saint-Germain—German-Austria torn apart—
Anschluss forbidden—the present situation.
XI. Territory and Population – page 79
Contraction of the Reich—increase in population—increasing need for territory—
migration back after the World War—"folk without space"—comparison of
population densities—colonial possessions of others—greatest population
density in the German Reich—claim for German colonies—the wrong way out—
industrialization—flight from the land a danger for the German east—unequal
distribution of the population—new territorial arrangement.
XII. The Soil as a Source of Food Supply – page 87
Quality of the soil—climate—use of the soil—farming—cattle raising—neglect of
agriculture—the consequences in the World War—dependence intensified by
Versailles—National Socialist agrarian policy—the production battle—extension
of usable areas—increase in production—reduction of destructive forces—
cultivation of more important food stuffs—results of the production battle—further
measures—the goal; freedom in the matter of food stuffs—everyone must
cooperate.
XIII. The Land as a Support for Industry – page 97
Origin of minerals—their distribution—domestic production and use—importation
of raw materials—increased dependence since Versailles—importation of raw
materials made difficult—social and economic consequences—the Four Year
Plan—new textile raw materials—rising output of ores—artificial rubber—German
gasoline and oils—the goal: German work out of German raw materials

.....

The earlier philosophical suppositions were not founded on any perception of
reality and of the facts as given. Instead, they were unrealistic theories devising
their own notions of world trends. They had nothing to do with actual events and
in most cases stood in sharpest opposition to them. By reason of this opposition
between theory and practice all questions of national life soon become so
entangled and obscure that even the "leaders" of such philosophical systems did
not know how to establish order amid the confusion. The humble comrade,
however, could only wait more or less patiently for what, as a result, came out of
high politics. He had been crowded off the political stage into the arena of
onlookers. The exact opposite is the case today. All questions of our national life
have become so clear, simple, and definite that every comrade can understand
them and cooperate in their solution.

For the National Socialist outlook on life is not something ingeniously devised. It
is no theory, but adapts itself strictly to existing reality. The ideal of National
Socialism is born of experience. It is a factual and realistic outlook on life.

The most significant and most efficacious realities in the life of a people are
"Blood and Soil." Whoever recognizes their binding force and effects in history
can also take part in shaping the future. To foster the building up for a political
will in the Hitler Youth organization, according to the National Socialist outlook on
life is the task of this little handbook for the schooling of the Hitler Youth.

...

Even today, the racial ideas of National Socialism have implacable opponents.
Free Masons, Marxists, and the Christian Church join hands in brotherly accord
on this point. The worldwide order of Free Masons conceals its Jewish plans for
ruling the world behind the catchword "Mankind" or "Humanity." Masonry can
take much as credit for its effort to bring Jews and Turks into the fold, as does
Christianity itself. Marxism has the same goal as Free Masonry. In this case, to
disguise its real intentions the slogan "Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity" is
preached. Under Jewish leadership, Marxism intends to bring together everyone
"who bears the face of man."

The Christians, above all the Roman Church, reject the race idea with the citation
'before God all men are equal." All who have the Christian belief, whether Jews,
bush *******, or whites are dearer to them and more worthwhile than a German
who does not confess Christianity. The one binding bond, above and beyond all
restrictions, is the Belief which alone brings salvation.

One proof that the Roman Church rejects the race idea against its own better
judgment is shown by the following facts. At one time, there existed the danger
that the aims of the Jesuit order would be jeopardized or perverted by its Jewish
members. A rule forbidding admission of Jews into the Jesuit order was issued.
Today, since the danger is long since past, the church disregards it.

Now why do we find in Free Masonry, Marxism, and the Christian church this
mistaken teaching of the equality of all men? All three are striving more or less
for power over the whole earth. Therefore, they must necessarily be
"international." They can never acknowledge the human ties of race, community,
or nation if they do not wish to give up their own aims.

Next gimp to claim Nazis were Xians needs to be banned from the Religion forum. They in fact were much more like your typical Dawkins' Dufuses and 'Progressive' Democrats, all about 'empiricism' and 'rationalism' and Darwinism and genetics. They sound just like the 'atheist' gimps who spam this forum; that is no coincidence, either.

 

[Picaro]

Christians believe that Jesus "fulfilled" OT prophecy. But in fact it's not prophecy fulfilled but prophecy historicized after the fact. The "fulfilled prophecies" were retrojected into the gospel writers' stories in order to flesh out the Jesus character who they knew so little about. After all, these writers wrote decades after Jesus died, and knew almost nothing about him. In their zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, they searched the Old Testament for anything (sometimes just phrases) that could possibly be construed as messianic prophecies, and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those so-called prophecies.

How do we know that? How do we know that the stories weren't actual records of actual fulfillment of prophecy? Well, lots of reasons, but one, in particular, stands out, at least to me. It's sometimes referred to as "Matthew's big blunder", and this blunder, I'm afraid, gives the game away.

In the story of the triumphal entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, Mark, Luke and John all say that Jesus entered the city riding on a donkey. But Matthew has Jesus enter the city straddling TWO animals, not one - a donkey AND a colt! Here's the passage in Matthew:

Matthew 21:1-7
Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, AND a colt with her. Loose THEM and bring THEM to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of THEM,’ and immediately he will send THEM.”

All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet [Zechariah], saying:

“Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’”

So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey AND the colt, laid THEIR clothes on THEM, and set Him on THEM.

The reason Matthew has Jesus on TWO animals instead of one is that he misunderstood the prophecy (quoted above) to refer to two animals. But this is an error on his part [yes, an error. You can throw out any belief in “inerrancy” right here!] This is a common occurrence in the OT of something called a parallelism, where the same idea is stated twice with slightly different wording, but actually means the same thing. In this case the passage in Zechariah is NOT referring to two animals. The donkey and the colt represent the same animal, and the other gospel writers all understood this, which is why they had Jesus enter the city on a lone donkey. Matthew didn't get it though. He thought the Zechariah passage literally meant TWO animals, so that's what he put in his story. It’s rather comical when you to try to picture Jesus straddling two animals!

Stunt rider Jesus to the rescue!

What does this tell us? What conclusions can we draw from this?

Here’s what we can conclude:

1) Whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew could not possibly have been an eyewitness. If he was, he would have known that Jesus entered the city on just one donkey, as he would have seen it with his own eyes.

2) Not only was the author not a witness, but he did not get his information from anyone else who was a witness, for the same reason as above.

3) Since he was neither a witness nor an acquaintance of a witness, there is only one way he could have gotten his information – from his own imagination – with the help of the Old Testament! Of course, he got the story from Mark, but then he changed Mark’s version of the story in order to reflect what he thought it should say in order to make the prophecy come true. It is a conscious act of fraud in order to make the text fit his own personal opinion about what must have happened. It is prophecy fulfillment invented, not recorded, and this is most likely how all of the gospels were written.

There’s an old story that goes like this: “While traveling through a forest, a person noticed a circle marked on a tree with an arrow shot perfectly into the center. A few yards away he noticed several more targets, each with arrows in the center. Later, he met the talented archer and he asked him, "How did you become such an expert that you always get your arrows into the center of the bullseye?" "It's not difficult," responded the archer, "First I shoot the arrow and then I draw the circle."”


That’s how the gospels were written!


And Matthew's blunder, among other things, gives the game away.

Rubbish.

 

[Picaro]

Anybody who wants to know why the OP is rubbish can start with these links; Mathew is one of the more complex books of the 4 Gospels, and uses several mediums and idioms that confuse modern readers who haven't been taught how to read the Old and New Testaments with any sort of intelligence or even have basic literary educations.

Literary structure (chiasmus, chiasm) of Gospel of Matthew

Behold the glory of the King: The chiastic structures of Matthew 21−25 | Scholtz | In die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi

http://nagasawafamily.org/matthew-chiasm.pdf

Find a timeline of events and prophesies in the Torah; the timeline of the Gospel narratives more or less match the structures.

They can also find out why Luke and Mark are different; they are supposed to be, and that becomes apparent by merely using the above as a guide.

Only morons run around citing verses as if the books are merely random disconnected made up sayings with no context or relationships to each other.

 

[Picaro]

So all the tap-dancing aside- He just made shit up. He borrowed from Mark and Q, and there's no evidence that they knew Jesus personally, either. SO we have hearsay on top of hearsay with the stories becoming more fantastical with each retelling.

Ever read different news articles about the exact same event? Some parts are precisely the same because different reporters read the same written report or spoke with the same witness or spokesman for the event. Other parts of the articles will be different as reporters interview different people. Some reporters will delve into history. Others will try to talk to friends and family of those involved to get their perspectives.

Sure, call it "Hearsay" since that suits your purpose. Due to the exorbitant cost of writing materials at that time, not a lot was written down. People relied on word of mouth. Was it accurate? Everyone can make an individual call on that.

first, reporters don't claim to be the inspired word of God, and when they make a mistake, there's usually a retraction printed.

Second, writing materials weren't all that uncommon in the day. In fact, there were well over 200 versions of the Gospel that were floating around by 300 AD before the Church decided that only the four we see were "Canon".

List of Gospels - Wikipedia

Tthere are only four Gospels, Joe, and the four that all of the Bishops agreed were the four, too bad for your assorted mentally ill conspiracy theories, and they were the same four that were around from the very beginning. That's why it would have been impossible to fake the originals and why the rest are not in the canon, or even got close to being in the canon.

 

[Picaro]

That if they had to OUTRIGHT lie to make Jesus meet the requirements of being the Messiah, doesn't that make Jesus' claim to be the Messiah dubious?

Considering Christians have been killing and torturing Jews for 2000 years over this point, it's not a minor quibble.

First, what is the most recent date Christians tortured or killed a Jew over Jesus being the Messiah?

Matthew and Luke include stories of Jesus birth and birthplace. Uncorroborated stories don't make them outright lies, it simply makes them uncorroborated accounts that you are now (two thousand years later) labeling as "lies".

While the Gospels do relate accounts of Jesus saying he was sent (anointed) by God, he also seems to make it clear he was not the type of Messiah Jews were dreaming of. But let's go with Jesus confirming he was the Messiah sent by God.

Do we have any account of Jesus saying he was born in Bethlehem? Do we have any account of Jesus saying he lived in a town called Nazareth? In other words, even if you believe that the birth accounts written by Matthew and Luke are intentional lies, not just uncorroborated stories, how do "lies" about his birth, written decades after Jesus confirmed he is the Messiah sent by God, make the original claim dubious?

the differences in eyewitness reports is just more evidence they are indeed written by different authors, and not by some con artist, and they also fit what we already know about eyewitness reports; they always vary from each other. Even the two variations in genealogies between Mathew and Luke are what one would expect as well in that era.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB, you are just unhappy that billions take your kind of carping and drop it in the waste basked.

not sure what a "waste basked" is, Fake Jake. Billions of people do lots of stupid things.

 

[JoeB131]

Tthere are only four Gospels, Joe, and the four that all of the Bishops agreed were the four, too bad for your assorted mentally ill conspiracy theories, and they were the same four that were around from the very beginning. That's why it would have been impossible to fake the originals and why the rest are not in the canon, or even got close to being in the canon.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia... errr... Eurasia.

The Bishops agreed on the Four that supported the political agenda of the day, creating a state religion for a declining Roman Empire.

The fact there were so many "Heresies" around at the the time - Arianism, Monophystism, Nestorianism, Gnostism - shows there was no universal agreement on who or what Jesus was.

the differences in eyewitness reports is just more evidence they are indeed written by different authors, and not by some con artist, and they also fit what we already know about eyewitness reports; they always vary from each other. Even the two variations in genealogies between Mathew and Luke are what one would expect as well in that era.

Except they weren't "Eyewitnesses". Luke even says as much in his Gospel.

The problem with these Gospels is that they are both trying desperately to up Jesus' credentials as a Messiah by taking the Gospel of Mark and embellishing it.

Yes, he was born in Bethlehem, instead of Galilee. (Nazareth didn't even exist in the first century, so they made that shit up later, too.) Just come up with some whacky backstory to put his family there.

Yes, he was descended from David, but let's trace him back through Joseph even though Yahweh was the sperm donor. That we can't get the ancestry right after David, or the number of generations, or that we miss some names that Chronicles lists, meh, no biggie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JoeB, you are just unhappy that billions take your kind of carping and drop it in the waste basked.

not sure what a "waste basked" is, Fake Jake. Billions of people do lots of stupid things.

And so do people like you: tasket a basked.

 

[Votto]

Christians believe that Jesus "fulfilled" OT prophecy. But in fact it's not prophecy fulfilled but prophecy historicized after the fact. The "fulfilled prophecies" were retrojected into the gospel writers' stories in order to flesh out the Jesus character who they knew so little about. After all, these writers wrote decades after Jesus died, and knew almost nothing about him. In their zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, they searched the Old Testament for anything (sometimes just phrases) that could possibly be construed as messianic prophecies, and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those so-called prophecies.

How do we know that? How do we know that the stories weren't actual records of actual fulfillment of prophecy? Well, lots of reasons, but one, in particular, stands out, at least to me. It's sometimes referred to as "Matthew's big blunder", and this blunder, I'm afraid, gives the game away.

In the story of the triumphal entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, Mark, Luke and John all say that Jesus entered the city riding on a donkey. But Matthew has Jesus enter the city straddling TWO animals, not one - a donkey AND a colt! Here's the passage in Matthew:

Matthew 21:1-7
Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, AND a colt with her. Loose THEM and bring THEM to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of THEM,’ and immediately he will send THEM.”

All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet [Zechariah], saying:

“Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’”

So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey AND the colt, laid THEIR clothes on THEM, and set Him on THEM.

The reason Matthew has Jesus on TWO animals instead of one is that he misunderstood the prophecy (quoted above) to refer to two animals. But this is an error on his part [yes, an error. You can throw out any belief in “inerrancy” right here!] This is a common occurrence in the OT of something called a parallelism, where the same idea is stated twice with slightly different wording, but actually means the same thing. In this case the passage in Zechariah is NOT referring to two animals. The donkey and the colt represent the same animal, and the other gospel writers all understood this, which is why they had Jesus enter the city on a lone donkey. Matthew didn't get it though. He thought the Zechariah passage literally meant TWO animals, so that's what he put in his story. It’s rather comical when you to try to picture Jesus straddling two animals!

Stunt rider Jesus to the rescue!

What does this tell us? What conclusions can we draw from this?

Here’s what we can conclude:

1) Whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew could not possibly have been an eyewitness. If he was, he would have known that Jesus entered the city on just one donkey, as he would have seen it with his own eyes.

2) Not only was the author not a witness, but he did not get his information from anyone else who was a witness, for the same reason as above.

3) Since he was neither a witness nor an acquaintance of a witness, there is only one way he could have gotten his information – from his own imagination – with the help of the Old Testament! Of course, he got the story from Mark, but then he changed Mark’s version of the story in order to reflect what he thought it should say in order to make the prophecy come true. It is a conscious act of fraud in order to make the text fit his own personal opinion about what must have happened. It is prophecy fulfillment invented, not recorded, and this is most likely how all of the gospels were written.

There’s an old story that goes like this: “While traveling through a forest, a person noticed a circle marked on a tree with an arrow shot perfectly into the center. A few yards away he noticed several more targets, each with arrows in the center. Later, he met the talented archer and he asked him, "How did you become such an expert that you always get your arrows into the center of the bullseye?" "It's not difficult," responded the archer, "First I shoot the arrow and then I draw the circle."”


That’s how the gospels were written!


And Matthew's blunder, among other things, gives the game away.

I'm not a fanatical inerrant kind of guy. Even inconsistencies can be seen in the OT, like who killed Goliath. (See Chronicles 20:5 and 2 Samuel 21:19) After all, the Bible does not claim to be inerrant, other people do.

I go by the overall message of the Bible that repeats, which is faith, hope, and love. There is also the general theme of a Messiah to come to save humanity. However, from an archeology perspective, the Bible is accurate enough to create a whole branch of archeology from which to draw information from. For example, scientists had no proof that the Philistines existed, but just went digging where the Bible said they were and found them. I believe everyone mentioned in the Bible to be historically real, and yes, the Israelites were slaves in Egypt and God delivered them. I know of no other scientific discipline that was created from a religious text. Pretty impressive.

Having said that, I'm most impressed by two prophesies, Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9:24-27.

Reading Isaiah 53, you would probably be persuaded that the NT was written to match it word for word. Well that is all well and good except for one problem. Why would God seek to punish and "innocent and blameless" man?

He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth


10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light and be satisfied
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Then there is Daniel 9. Here we have a calendar for the coming of the Messiah. Naturally, Christians calculate the calendar to the time of Christ as where those who don't believe dispute this. However, in the Talmud we see rabbis calculate the time and forbid people to calculate it because it points to the time of Jesus.

Further, rabbis are told that "Jesus tarries" because the time has already passed for the coming of their Messiah. Because they reject their Messiah, they reason that God simply changed his mind due to the sinfulness of Israel.

As for John being anti-Semitic, you are nuts.

 

[HaShev]

I'm not a fanatical inerrant kind of guy. Even inconsistencies can be seen in the OT, like who killed Goliath. (See Chronicles 20:5 and 2 Samuel 21:19) After all, the Bible does not claim to be inerrant, other people do.

I go by the overall message of the Bible that repeats, which is faith, hope, and love. There is also the general theme of a Messiah to come to save humanity. However, from an archeology perspective, the Bible is accurate enough to create a whole branch of archeology from which to draw information from. For example, scientists had no proof that the Philistines existed, but just went digging where the Bible said they were and found them. I believe everyone mentioned in the Bible to be historically real, and yes, the Israelites were slaves in Egypt and God delivered them. I know of no other scientific discipline that was created from a religious text. Pretty impressive.

Having said that, I'm most impressed by two prophesies, Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9:24-27.

Reading Isaiah 53, you would probably be persuaded that the NT was written to match it word for word. Well that is all well and good except for one problem. Why would God seek to punish and "innocent and blameless" man?

He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth


10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light and be satisfied
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Then there is Daniel 9. Here we have a calendar for the coming of the Messiah. Naturally, Christians calculate the calendar to the time of Christ as where those who don't believe dispute this. However, in the Talmud we see rabbis calculate the time and forbid people to calculate it because it points to the time of Jesus.

Further, rabbis are told that "Jesus tarries" because the time has already passed for the coming of their Messiah. Because they reject their Messiah, they reason that God simply changed his mind due to the sinfulness of Israel.

As for John being anti-Semitic, you are nuts.

I'm guessing you are easily swayed by fake news?
Isaiah 53 is not messianic & is PLURAL PAST TENSE not singular fiture tense. Context talks about Israel being the servent over 14 times in Isaiah. Israel became disfigured and despised, Jesus is written to be popular throughout the NT so are you saying the NT lies?
Daniel 9 is also not messianic.
The word in Isaiah is "an" anointed, not THE ANOINTED ONE. KINGS were anointed.


Placement of Jesus in Dan 9 is the earliest form of fake news=fake narative.

Let me explain Dan 9 so you see it revealed.
The events Daniel is prophecizing already occured before Jesus and the events of the temple you propose occured after Jesus making the correlation impossible even if you avoided history and thought it didn’t occur yet.
Daniel is talking about "an anointed place" and an anointed (King)
not THE ANOINTED ONE.
*notice word play deceptions to paint false placement*
Now to review why these events already occured:
Dan 9: There is a 7-week (49-year) span between the actual destruction of Jerusalem in 586 (beginning the exile and realizing the decree in 538bc to rebuild), and the end of the exile brought about by the arrival of ‘AN’ anointed one not “THE” anointed one . Kings and High Priests were anointed as AN anointed one but not THE anointed one. Thus we must notice the wording is “an anointed one” not “THE” anointed one.

Dan 9:24 says anoint the holy place not an anointed man. Daniel 9:25 says, "from the time the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem was issued, until AN annointed one, a ruler, it will be seven weeks". If the decree is indeed sometime around the beginning of the full Exile, 586 b.c.e., then who is the anointed one mentioned? And, GOD already has referred to ruler Cyrus as his Anointed in
Isaiah 45:1: 70 years after the destruction Cyrus rebuilt the Temple in other words it's completion in 516BC
Here's the reference of this ‘70 years’ by the Historian Josephus in Antiquities 11.1.1: Ant. 11.1.1 "In the first year of the reign of Cyrus, which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they has served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that SERVITUDE seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity; and these things God did afford them."

Daniel 9:26
And after the sixty-two weeks,an anointed one will be cut off,
and there will be nothing to him.
and the people of a ruler who shall come
shall destroy the city and the sanctuary,
and the end of it/him shall be with a flood,,
and, until the end of the war, desolations are decreed.

62 weeks (434 years) leads us to around 152 b.c.e. the time of antiochus desolation and destruction of the temple. The anointed one was the king who was cut off. High Priest Onias III, who was assasinated (cut off) in 171 b.c.e. In 168 b.c.e., the middle of the next "week" of years (171-165 b.c.e.), ruler Antiochus IV (who had Onias killed) pillaged Jerusalem. Antiochus IV matches the "ruler to come",

Furthermore if you ever read the commentary on Daniel and Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls the liberator &
HaSheva (redeemer) is already named as Michael (the Evening Star- rises
-Dan 12:1-4) thus Daniels Visions of the Night (Evening Star Shalem) is of son of man (Shalem)-Dan7:7, 7:13.

Conclusion: learn to discern "tenses",
least you be duped & played by people who manipulate words to change the narrative for sake of propaganda, like our tabloid news does today.