Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-07-2005, 07:40 PM

I think Matthew's description of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two different animals is a dead giveaway that he was writing from a (misunderstood) piece of the Tanakh than from any remembered history.

There's also the fact that so much of the stuff in the OT that's supposed to be about Jesus has no Messianic intent in context.

Vorkosigan · 05-07-2005, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

Thats the convenient atheist answer. Any evidence that the authors of the NT intentionally stole ideas out of the OT to fabricate Christ and His crucifixion?

Yes. There's a longer essay on my site but basically it comes down to several points:

1. direct citation of the OT followed by parallel action (strike and scatter the sheep, the disciples flee)
2. parallels in which the writer cites the model passage directly (Psalm 22/Crucifixion, Jairus' daughter/kings)
3. Matt's famous errors and misreadings (Zech 9:9)
4. Evangelists expanded each other's stories:

In the Gethsemane scene, the writer of Luke realized that the writer of Mark parallels 3 Kings (LXX). However, the writer of Mark declined to supply the angel that ministers to Elijah in that passage, so Luke added it, along with additional language from the Septuagint. Such changes point to both the origin of the passage, and its creation at the hands of the Gospel authors. It also says volumes about how they themselves regarded the stories they were telling.

5. broken parallels that enable us to make predictions that we can confirm by looking at other texts (the missing verse in Mk 15:47)

Etc

Magus55 · 05-07-2005, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Luke 24:25 He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Is this not a smoking gun? A hint to those in the know?

Not a smoking gun. To me, this verse only verifies that messianic prophecy was present since the days of Moses. You however interpret it as them using the OT to create Jesus. Obviously there is never gonna be agreement among theists and atheists. We both look at things drastically different.

jdlongmire · 05-07-2005, 09:12 PM

Yeah, most Christians are convinced that the authors are truthful.

Opponents are convinced that the authors had an agenda and were liars.

...hard to find middle ground when one position is essentially the climax of redemptive history and the other attempts to invalidate the essence of salvation.

Both have a lot to lose if the truth claims of the other are valid...

-JD

Wallener · 05-07-2005, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There's also the fact that so much of the stuff in the OT that's supposed to be about Jesus has no Messianic intent in context.

Meanwhile the actual messianic prophecies, which biblical Jesus completely failed to fulfill, are conveniently ignored.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-07-2005, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

Not a smoking gun. To me, this verse only verifies that messianic prophecy was present since the days of Moses. You however interpret it as them using the OT to create Jesus. Obviously there is never gonna be agreement among theists and atheists. We both look at things drastically different.

How does something that was written in the late 90's CE (at the earliest) verify anything about "the days of Moses" (for whom there are no attributed Messianic prophecies and who never existed anyway)?

Vorkosigan · 05-07-2005, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlongmire

Yeah, most Christians are convinced that the authors are truthful.

Opponents are convinced that the authors had an agenda and were liars.

...hard to find middle ground when one position is essentially the climax of redemptive history and the other attempts to invalidate the essence of salvation.

Both have a lot to lose if the truth claims of the other are valid...

-JD

If you paint false dichotomies, of course middle grounds will disappear. Other alternatives exist, however. To say that Mark built his gospel by paralleling the OT does not make him a liar, for I doubt he intended it as history. Edifying narrative, at best. The only liar was Luke, for as the example I gave above shows, Luke knew full well what he was doing when he constructed his gospel, and yet claimed it was history.

Vorkosigan

judge · 05-08-2005, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

How does something that was written in the late 90's CE (at the earliest) verify anything about "the days of Moses" (for whom there are no attributed Messianic prophecies and who never existed anyway)?

Can you provide proof that Luke was written in the 90's at the earliest?

How can we prove it was not written earlier?

andrewcriddle · 05-08-2005, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
The above comment by Andrew needs to be qualified in my opinion. First, let's look at the entire related discussion in context:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t08/t0814.htm

"But what is his name? The disciples of R. Shilah said: Shilah is his name, as it reads [Gen. xlix. 10]: "Until Shilah will come." The disciples of R. Janai said Jinun is his name, as it reads [Ps. lxxii. 17]: "In the presence of the sun, Jinun is his name." And the disciples of R. Hanina said: Hanina is his name, as [Jer. xvi. 13]: "So that I will not grant you Hanina." (Favor.) According to others, Menachem b. Hiskia is his name as in [Sam. i. 16]: "For from me in Menachem (comforter) that should refresh my soul." And the rabbis said: The sufferer of the house of Rabbi is his name, as [Is. liii. 4]: "But only our diseases did he bear himself, and our pains he carried: while we indeed esteemed him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted."

.................................................. ..........................

In summary then, since Andrew's excerpt from the Talmud is a quote from 53 in a discussion regarding a quality of the Messiah it is evidence of an opinion in the Talmud that what is now known as 53 referred to an individual. However, the weight of this evidence is seriously reduced due to:

1) There is no straight-forward discussion here as to the Israel vs. Individual issue.

2) This isn't an opinion as to the identity of 53 because 53 didn't exist at the time so the Talmud can only give opinions concerning portions of what is now 53.

3) This discussion was specifically limited to the Name of the Messiah.

4) The arguments are all based on proof-texting.

5) The arguments have a Midrashic style indicating the primary objective was to illustrate a quality of an admired subject rather than give a straight-forward meaning of Scripture.

In my opinion then Andrew's excerpt is better evidence of just how hard it is to find support for a clear Rabbinic opinion that 53 refers to the Messiah than it is that there was Rabbinic opinion that 53 referred to the Messiah.

Joseph

Thanks for that Joseph.

One relevant discussion here would be the chapter Midrashic Theologies of Messianic Suffering in Exegetical Imagination by the Jewish scholar Michael Fishbane.

Andrew Criddle

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-08-2005, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Can you provide proof that Luke was written in the 90's at the earliest?

How can we prove it was not written earlier?

Luke knows Josephus.

Luke uses Josephus' Aniquities, which did not exist before 94 CE.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-07-2005, 07:40 PM	#21
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I think Matthew's description of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two different animals is a dead giveaway that he was writing from a (misunderstood) piece of the Tanakh than from any remembered history. There's also the fact that so much of the stuff in the OT that's supposed to be about Jesus has no Messianic intent in context.

05-07-2005, 09:12 PM	#24
jdlongmire Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: American by birth, Southern by the grace of God! Posts: 2,657	Yeah, most Christians are convinced that the authors are truthful. Opponents are convinced that the authors had an agenda and were liars. ...hard to find middle ground when one position is essentially the climax of redemptive history and the other attempts to invalidate the essence of salvation. Both have a lot to lose if the truth claims of the other are valid... -JD

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.