aa5874

No, NO, No!!! You are NOT in full agreement with me.

My point is that YOU used the same Comedic Jesus stories in the Bible as the Foundation for your Jesus.

Your Jesus is Clumsy Comedic Fiction.

In the Gospel of Abe, Your Jesus is claimed to be from Nazareth.

Now, again we will see Clumsy Comedy from the author of gMatthew.

Matthew 2:23 KJV 1. There is NO city called Nazareth in Hebrew Scripture and NO mention of Nazareth.

2. No books of the Prophets mentioned that Jesus would live in Nazareth.

3. No CITY of Nazareth has ever been found in the 1st century.

The Gospel of Abe is based on CLUMSY COMEDIC Fiction.

We now have PRIMA FACIE evidence that ApostateAbe Jesus and the Canonised Jesus stories were based on Clumsy Comedic Fables in the Bible.

Duvduv

IF the author of Matthew believed the verse to be Isaiah 11:1 where the word BRANCH is "NETZER" why wouldn't the author of Matthew say "as is written....."??
What is even more interesting is that the branch comes out of the root in that verse from Isaiah is not the branch that bears fruit but the shoot ("khoter") which immediately comes out of the stump ("geza") of Jesse. Thus it would seem to have been more appropriate to have Jesus come from a place resembling the words khoter or geza rather than netzer.

Of course the author may not have known Hebrew well enough (if at all) so he may have thought the reference was to Judges where the angel says that the child Samson will be a Nazirite, although the word NAZIR uses a zayin and a tsadi as in NETZER.

spin

Perhaps it would be surprising to find that ApostateAbe tried this discussion here and was adjudicated to have lost, for whatever that was worth. He seems to be maintaining his record.

ApostateAbe

What is your opinion on who won the debate?

aa5874

Now, once it is understood that the author of gMatthew was NOT familiar with Hebrew then we can deduce that his immediate readers were also NOT familiar with Hebrew and with Jewish traditions.

The author of gMatthew was likely NOT a Jew and most likely did NOT live in a Jewish community.

Surely it would be EXPECTED that if it was known that Zech. 9.9 is about One Ass then the author of gMatthew would have considered to be one of them.

Solo

Or it may be that you misread Matthew's intent in loading Jesus on two donkeys. Matthew knew Mark, and he knew Mark was using Zechariah. It is also very probable that Matthew was familiar with the technique of parallelismus membrorum which is used in Zech 9:9. In short, the idea that Matthew somehow misunderstood the text in front of him is itself an admission of not being able to cope with the gospel's idiom.


Best,
Jiri

ApostateAbe

You think Matthew wrote it as a joke or something?

aa5874

Well, well, well!!! ApostateAbe himself is a Victim of Matthean Jokes.

It is clear gMatthew was a Myth Fable Joker when he claimed Mary was WITH child of the Holy Ghost.

The Gospel of AbeMatthew 1:18 KJV ApostateAbe completely MIS-READS gMatthew 1.18 and gLuke 1.26-35 and claims Jesus was the Son of Joseph in the very same way the author of Matthew claimed Jesus RODE TWO ASSES.

In Zechariah 9.9-- one ASS was to be ridden.

Matthew's Jesus Rides TWO.

In gMatthew 1.18--Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and Mary.

ApostateAbe's Jesus was the Son of Joseph and Mary.

What Jokes!!!!

We have Clumsy Comedic fiction.

Duvduv

I agree with this assessment.

hjalti

The problem I have with this methodology is that you can almost take any story that has a very positive spin on Jesus and claim that the positive stuff about Jesus is an addition to a tradition that the author was embarassed about. E.g. take the example of the demons saying that Jesus was sent from god (or something like that), one can just as well say that those are additions to exorcisms that the author was embarassed about. :huh:

Why do you conclude that these are Markan additions to a pre-existing tradition that didn't have those elements?

Well, Mark seems to have a different Christology than the other guys, so we really shouldn't expect him to be embarassed by the same things as the other guys. I mean, Matthew probably changed the "Nobody is good but god"-saying because he didn't like it, but Mark probably didn't have any problems with it. In Mark you just seem to have the guy Jesus going to a normal baptism, and when he gets a "clean slate" at the baptism, the holy ghost goes into him.

And the bigger problem here is of course that if we conclude that Mark didn't make it up, that it was just an earlier tradition, that doesn't make it historical. We know that later Christians often don't like earlier stuff, that doesn't mean that the earlier stuff is historical.