Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 05-02-2009, 11:33 AM

I don't know if returning to the OP is in order.

Matthew's main gig is obviously credentialing Jesus with all manner of Hebrew Bible prophecies. If you accept Marcan priority then you see Matthew as dependent upon it, aggrandizing it with the wise men and other rubbish, and acting as a "proof of messiahship" text.

Look at the sophomoric nature of shoe-horning all these prophecies. We are dealing with an illiterate audience that thinks the world is flat. So "close enough for Jesus" means an extremely low standard relative to literate, logical, and unbiased persons.

One of the amazing things, if you step back and look at it critically, is how disheveled, inconsistent, hokey, and just plain stupid the bible is. Really - sending two thousand pigs into the sea, water into wine, coming back from the dead, incorrect geography, mistranslated LXX passages, etc -

And to preen around about how "beautiful" it is - it's ridiculous.

rhutchin · 05-02-2009, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

I don't know if returning to the OP is in order.

Matthew's main gig is obviously credentialing Jesus with all manner of Hebrew Bible prophecies. If you accept Marcan priority then you see Matthew as dependent upon it, aggrandizing it with the wise men and other rubbish, and acting as a "proof of messiahship" text.

Look at the sophomoric nature of shoe-horning all these prophecies. We are dealing with an illiterate audience that thinks the world is flat. So "close enough for Jesus" means an extremely low standard relative to literate, logical, and unbiased persons.

One of the amazing things, if you step back and look at it critically, is how disheveled, inconsistent, hokey, and just plain stupid the bible is. Really - sending two thousand pigs into the sea, water into wine, coming back from the dead, incorrect geography, mistranslated LXX passages, etc -

And to preen around about how "beautiful" it is - it's ridiculous.

You must be the king of making straw men to create something to rail about. You have the most fertile imagination of anyone.

Toto · 05-02-2009, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

...
One of the amazing things, if you step back and look at it critically, is how disheveled, inconsistent, hokey, and just plain stupid the bible is. Really - sending two thousand pigs into the sea, water into wine, coming back from the dead, incorrect geography, mistranslated LXX passages, etc -

...

Hey - those swine running to the sea are brilliant political satire, and water into wine is a bit of comic relief.

It's only the people who take the gospels literally who make them look stupid.

rlogan · 05-02-2009, 12:31 PM

It's worth looking at this whole Matthew "out of Egypt" farce

Quote:

Mat 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

Mat 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,

Mat 2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping [for] her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

Mat 2:19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,

Mat 2:20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.

Mat 2:21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

Matthew 2 begins with the alleged prophecy of Micah 5:2 about being born in Bethlehem. But unfortunately this "prophecy" refers to a military leader who will defeat the Assyrians. Must be a lost chapter on Jesus, eh?

Then we have Jeremiah 31:15, referred to specifically by Matthew (Rachael weeping) - which refers not to a ficticious slaughter by Herod, unrecorded anywhere in history, but instead to the Babylonian captivity. Just read it fully instead of quote mining.

Finally, we have Hosea 11:1 - just read it. Clearly talking about Israel.

When you read where these are quote-mined from it is really a remarkable "junkyard wars" Jesus. A real Rube Goldberg contraption.

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. But in front of illiterate bronze-age goat herders? No problem. Who is going to actually read the HB passages? Nobody.

rlogan · 05-02-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

...
One of the amazing things, if you step back and look at it critically, is how disheveled, inconsistent, hokey, and just plain stupid the bible is. Really - sending two thousand pigs into the sea, water into wine, coming back from the dead, incorrect geography, mistranslated LXX passages, etc -

...

Hey - those swine running to the sea are brilliant political satire, and water into wine is a bit of comic relief.

It's only the people who take the gospels literally who make them look stupid.

Well yes - I do appreciate the background to the first point in particular and the fact is there is a completely different dimension to the bible once we part ways with the superstitious ignorati. Vorkosigan would take issue with me on the literary merits of Mark, for sure.

kcdad · 05-02-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

There are actually a lot of people who call themselves Christian Atheists.

Christian Atheist is an obvious oxymoron.

Is it? Perhaps you need to understand what Christian means and what Atheist means... they are not mutually exclusive in any way.

kcdad · 05-02-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

How do you know that Luke meant to limit the statement, "...when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord..." to just those actions which he described. He could have named a few things and then included any other requirements in that phrase. He may have viewed the command to go to Egypt as one of those things.

Don't you think running away to Egypt to flee this wholesale slaughter is significant enough to mention in some more specific way than you suggest Luke alludes?

kcdad · 05-02-2009, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

[

You must be the king of making straw men to create something to rail about. You have the most fertile imagination of anyone.

I resent that.

Toto · 05-02-2009, 02:07 PM

[staffwarn]The topic of whether one can be a "Christian atheist" or a "Christian agnostic" belongs in GRD, where it has been hashed out at least several times, without reaching an agreement.[/staffwarn]

Kasper · 05-02-2009, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I agree.

Okay. So why do you start talking about Moses then?

Quote:

How do you know that Luke meant to limit the statement, "...when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord..." to just those actions which he described. He could have named a few things and then included any other requirements in that phrase. He may have viewed the command to go to Egypt as one of those things.

I do know that Luke describes certain actions done by the people surrounding Jesus, and I do know that the things they did were commanded by God. I do know that Luke tells us that after they had did what was commanded by God, they returned to Galilee.
YOU are the one making assumptions here. YOU are the one over-analyzing a text to a point where it becomes embarassing to watch. Ever heard about Occam's Razor?

Quote:

Given your lack of evidence to show what Luke intended, I don't see that you can resolve this to mean what you want it to mean.

This quote is particularly hilarious. Given my lack of evidence? I'm not the one making assumptions so that the verses fit my agenda. Throughout this discussion you have assumed that Luke would not mention the escape into Egypt because Matthew had already mentioned it. What evidence do you base that on?
I have not come to any conclusions by assuming anything. I have based my argument on what we're actually being told in Luke.

1) They do X after Jesus was born.
2) X are rituals that God has commanded people to do when a child is born.
3) After they do what is commanded by God, they go to Galilee.

You include some things not mentioned by Luke. Occam's Razor comes into play again.

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

05-02-2009, 11:33 AM	#111
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	I don't know if returning to the OP is in order. Matthew's main gig is obviously credentialing Jesus with all manner of Hebrew Bible prophecies. If you accept Marcan priority then you see Matthew as dependent upon it, aggrandizing it with the wise men and other rubbish, and acting as a "proof of messiahship" text. Look at the sophomoric nature of shoe-horning all these prophecies. We are dealing with an illiterate audience that thinks the world is flat. So "close enough for Jesus" means an extremely low standard relative to literate, logical, and unbiased persons. One of the amazing things, if you step back and look at it critically, is how disheveled, inconsistent, hokey, and just plain stupid the bible is. Really - sending two thousand pigs into the sea, water into wine, coming back from the dead, incorrect geography, mistranslated LXX passages, etc - And to preen around about how "beautiful" it is - it's ridiculous.

05-02-2009, 02:07 PM	#119
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	[staffwarn]The topic of whether one can be a "Christian atheist" or a "Christian agnostic" belongs in GRD, where it has been hashed out at least several times, without reaching an agreement.[/staffwarn]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.