Hey! this is fun, I think I'd like to have a go at Devil's arguments. So, the Jew (who loves Jesus) decries the New Testament (which he isn't really supposed to know), which is then defended by the Atheist!
Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). Luke 3:23 <----conflicting geneologies as to the line of jesus. the messiah comes from the line of david. period.
Not only does the Gospel state that Jesus was from the line of David, it has him doing it two different ways! What more could you need!?
Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4 <------- virgin birth has nothing to do with the messiah. the hebrew texts say "a young girl". an attempt to legitimize jesus' divinity.
Actually, I don't know Romans 1:3 or Galatians 4:4 - I myself thought more of Matthew 1:23, in which he directly quotes Isaiah. You see, neither Matthew, nor Jesus himself, knew the Hebrew texts: they knew the Septuagint, the Jewish Scriptures in Greek, and the Septuagint renders Is 7:14 "ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι" where "παρθενος" is "parthenos", or virgin.
in matthew, the angel appears to joseph in a dream and tells him that mary's child will save his people from their sins. in luke, the angel tells mary that her son will be great, he will be called the "son of the most high" and will rule on david's throne forever. a short time later mary tells elizabeth that all generations will consider her (mary) blessed because of the child that will be born to her.
if this were true, mary and joseph should have had the highest regard for their son. instead, we read in Mark 3:20-21 that jesus' family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind. and later, in mark 6:4-6 jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household.
You appear to be twisting words to suit your own purposes. In Mark 3:20-21, it says "friends" in two translations, one being a "Literal" one, and the context certainly seems to be that of hustling him out of the way before he gets attacked.
In Mark 6:4, it's the other people of Jesus's native area that are not giving him honour, not his own family. Jesus responds by then exaggerating the extent to which he as a prophet is ignored, in, it has to be said, a very typically Jewish manner! There's certainly no indication whatsoever that Mary and Joseph themselves ever dishonoured Jesus.
according to matthew, jesus was born during the reign of herod the great (mathew 2:1)
according to luke, jesus was born during the first census in israel, while quirinius was governor of syria (luke 2:2). this is impossible because herod died in 4 b.c. and the census took place in 6 a.d. . herod had been dead for about ten years at this point.
There may have been another census for which we have no record. There was another census in about 6 BCE, I think, but in any case the validity of Jesus as messiah (particularly to Jews of the day) has nothing to do with his nativity story or its timing.
both matthew and luke say that jesus was born in bethlehem. matthew quotes micah 5:2 to show the prophecy being fulfilled. now, compare micah 5:2 to matthew 2:6 and notice the difference. it is a small one. but his crappy hebrew is evident, and becomes very significant later in his gospel.
As I think I pointed out, there isn't one word of "crappy" or otherwise Hebrew in Matthew's Gospel, nor the remotest indication he even knew Hebrew. The widespread knowledge of some Biblical Hebrew for readings and ritual purposes we know today is in fact almost enitrely a post-Jesus Era phenomenon.
luke says mary and joseph travelled from nazareth in galilee to bethlehem for jesus to be born (luke 2:4). matthew has a contradiction with luke that states that only AFTER the birth of jesus did mary and joseph live in nazareth, and only then because they were afraid to go back to judea (matthew 2:21-23)
Well, it doesn't say, in Mt, where they were before the birth, so they could have been in Nazareth, just not mentioning the name of the place until afterwards. Oh, no, wait, you didn't get this argument from one of my posts did you?
in order for jesus to be born in bethlehem, luke has it written that everyone had to return to their birth cities to register for the census. ridiculous, as it would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. the purpose of census was for taxes. the romans were interested in where folks lived and worked, not where they were born. they could have just asked this, rather than having thousands of people travelling across the countryside. romans are known for their efficient taxing practices, not for being idiots having their subjects running around wildly.
also, see:
isaiah 7:14 about the supposed prerequisite of "virgin birth". keep in mind that the passage should substitute "virgin" with "young girl".
jeremiah 31:15 about herod's slaughtering of babies. however, it is interesting to note that ancient historians, such as josephus who LOVED listing herod's crimes seemed to omit what would have been herod's greatest atrocity by far. the context of this verse is very clearly referencing the weeping for the israelites about to be taken into babylon. it has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later.
hosea 11:1 about joseph, mary and jesus escaping to egypt. matthew says this is a fulfillment of messianic prophecy as well. however, he only quotes the latter half of hosea. the first half makes very clear the fact that the verse refers to G-d calling the israelites of of egypt in the exodus.
To defend Jesus Messianity, I would mention that Matthew's definitions of what constitute valid prophecy fulfillment may not be the case.
since the prophecies above (and many more) do not make jesus the messiah, why did matthew include them in his gospel?
2 possibilities:
1. the church says that the words had a hidden future context as well as the original context.
2. matthew, in his enthusiasm to prove that jesus was the messiah, searched the old testament for passages (mostly just phrases from verses) that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified events in jesus' life to fulfill them.
That wouldn't be necessary! To this day, people look at the events of the Tsunami or Hurricane Katrina, say, and find Scriptural backing for their contention that this is one of the signs that the End Times are here. Nothing from the Bible, nor the details of the Tsunami or Hurricane Katrina need be made up at all!
jesus was baptized, even though he was without sin.....matthew 3:11
jesus did not consider himself sinless.....mark 10:18, luke 18:19
Washing away sin through baptism is a Christian ritual and doctrine, and therefore doesn't apply to before Christianity was invented. In any case, rather like the case of Mary undergoing ritual cleansing despite being "free from Original sin", the unwarranted assumption is that either Jesus or Mary would behave as if they considered themselves without sin or would demonstrate arrogance by so behaving, which in itself would be a sin.
did judas die? in matthew 27:5 judas hangs himself.
in acts 1:18 judas has his insides burst open and spill onto the ground.
in matthew 19:28 jesus tells the twelve disciples, including judas, that when jesus rules from his throne, they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of israel.
Interestingly, this is precisely the kind of passage which at least proves the authenticity of at least
some of the Gospel narrative, since it was carefully left un-edited in retrospect by the post-Easter (and post-Betrayal) Church. This kind of argument hadn't previously occurred to me, but I've been reading
Gospel Truth? by Graham Stanton, which is a pretty good introduction to NT scholarship (even though it's written by a Christian!)
when jesus died, there was supposedly a great earthquake, and the dead rose from their graves to return to jerusalem (matthew 27:51-53). why is there no historical record of such a fantastic occurance?
One argument offered by Stanton that you won't hear advanced by any Evangelical Christians is that Gospel Truth and Historical Truth are not the same thing. The Gospels were written in a certain way to make theological points, or to justify certain Church teaching, while retaining a great deal of genuine Jesus traditions. The resurrection of the Saints (by which Matt. meant the Jewish saints, of course!) is a somewhat outré example, it has to be said. But one possible reason is that there is not a great deal of contemporary record of 1st Century life in Judaea, outside the Gospels. Surviving history has concentrated on the Jewish Revolt of forty years later, and those are the non-Christian records that tended to be copied and maintained by scribes.
the ascension of jesus.......now, jesus is divine? there were witnesses to his ascension? read for more contradiction.......luke 24:51, and acts 1:9-12.
Erm,
Luke 24:51
And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
Acts 1:9-12
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
I expected to find contradiction there, but there isn't any contradiction, only a brief sketch followed by a more developed description, reserved for its proper place ie the second part of Luke's story.
Well, this has been fun!
