- This topic has 330 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
KSMountain.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 4, 2011 at 12:02 PM #693341May 4, 2011 at 12:39 PM #692191
Eugene
Participant[quote=Shadowfax]
Well…? Now you have to go there….[/quote]It’s too long to type up everything in detail, but here’s the outline.
– The only evangelist who possibly could have seen live Jesus and his mother is Mark. Mark does not say a single word about his birth.
– Luke & Matthew never met Jesus (both these Gospels were recorded about 50 years after his death, most likely by Greeks) and most of their narrative material is simply copied verbatim from Mark.
– Birth stories are among the few pieces of narrative information which Luke & Matthew added to the content from Mark.
– Birth stories of Luke & Matthew have nothing in common except for the mention of Bethlehem, and they explicitly contradict each other in some places. This is exactly what you’d expect if two people independently created fictional accounts of the same event.
– The purpose of these fictional accounts is to “retroactively fulfill” the prophecy of Micah 5:2 and to harmonize the fact that Jesus was known to be out of Nazareth (a one-horse town on the outskirts of Israel, three days walk from the capital), with the Jewish expectation that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (a suburb of Jerusalem).
– The virgin birth was likewise inserted to “fulfill” the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. This part is particularly embarrassing to Christians, because it only came up because someone read Isaiah in Greek translation, which was garbled in process, and a phrase that should have meant “…the girl [as in, some specific girl that is standing near the speaker, or at least whose identity is implicitly understood both by the speaker and the listener] is or will soon be pregnant”, got translated as “… a virgin will get pregnant”.
May 4, 2011 at 12:39 PM #692266Participant[quote=Shadowfax]
Well…? Now you have to go there….[/quote]It’s too long to type up everything in detail, but here’s the outline.
– The only evangelist who possibly could have seen live Jesus and his mother is Mark. Mark does not say a single word about his birth.
– Luke & Matthew never met Jesus (both these Gospels were recorded about 50 years after his death, most likely by Greeks) and most of their narrative material is simply copied verbatim from Mark.
– Birth stories are among the few pieces of narrative information which Luke & Matthew added to the content from Mark.
– Birth stories of Luke & Matthew have nothing in common except for the mention of Bethlehem, and they explicitly contradict each other in some places. This is exactly what you’d expect if two people independently created fictional accounts of the same event.
– The purpose of these fictional accounts is to “retroactively fulfill” the prophecy of Micah 5:2 and to harmonize the fact that Jesus was known to be out of Nazareth (a one-horse town on the outskirts of Israel, three days walk from the capital), with the Jewish expectation that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (a suburb of Jerusalem).
– The virgin birth was likewise inserted to “fulfill” the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. This part is particularly embarrassing to Christians, because it only came up because someone read Isaiah in Greek translation, which was garbled in process, and a phrase that should have meant “…the girl [as in, some specific girl that is standing near the speaker, or at least whose identity is implicitly understood both by the speaker and the listener] is or will soon be pregnant”, got translated as “… a virgin will get pregnant”.
May 4, 2011 at 12:39 PM #692865Participant[quote=Shadowfax]
Well…? Now you have to go there….[/quote]It’s too long to type up everything in detail, but here’s the outline.
– The only evangelist who possibly could have seen live Jesus and his mother is Mark. Mark does not say a single word about his birth.
– Luke & Matthew never met Jesus (both these Gospels were recorded about 50 years after his death, most likely by Greeks) and most of their narrative material is simply copied verbatim from Mark.
– Birth stories are among the few pieces of narrative information which Luke & Matthew added to the content from Mark.
– Birth stories of Luke & Matthew have nothing in common except for the mention of Bethlehem, and they explicitly contradict each other in some places. This is exactly what you’d expect if two people independently created fictional accounts of the same event.
– The purpose of these fictional accounts is to “retroactively fulfill” the prophecy of Micah 5:2 and to harmonize the fact that Jesus was known to be out of Nazareth (a one-horse town on the outskirts of Israel, three days walk from the capital), with the Jewish expectation that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (a suburb of Jerusalem).
– The virgin birth was likewise inserted to “fulfill” the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. This part is particularly embarrassing to Christians, because it only came up because someone read Isaiah in Greek translation, which was garbled in process, and a phrase that should have meant “…the girl [as in, some specific girl that is standing near the speaker, or at least whose identity is implicitly understood both by the speaker and the listener] is or will soon be pregnant”, got translated as “… a virgin will get pregnant”.
May 4, 2011 at 12:39 PM #693012Participant[quote=Shadowfax]
Well…? Now you have to go there….[/quote]It’s too long to type up everything in detail, but here’s the outline.
– The only evangelist who possibly could have seen live Jesus and his mother is Mark. Mark does not say a single word about his birth.
– Luke & Matthew never met Jesus (both these Gospels were recorded about 50 years after his death, most likely by Greeks) and most of their narrative material is simply copied verbatim from Mark.
– Birth stories are among the few pieces of narrative information which Luke & Matthew added to the content from Mark.
– Birth stories of Luke & Matthew have nothing in common except for the mention of Bethlehem, and they explicitly contradict each other in some places. This is exactly what you’d expect if two people independently created fictional accounts of the same event.
– The purpose of these fictional accounts is to “retroactively fulfill” the prophecy of Micah 5:2 and to harmonize the fact that Jesus was known to be out of Nazareth (a one-horse town on the outskirts of Israel, three days walk from the capital), with the Jewish expectation that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (a suburb of Jerusalem).
– The virgin birth was likewise inserted to “fulfill” the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. This part is particularly embarrassing to Christians, because it only came up because someone read Isaiah in Greek translation, which was garbled in process, and a phrase that should have meant “…the girl [as in, some specific girl that is standing near the speaker, or at least whose identity is implicitly understood both by the speaker and the listener] is or will soon be pregnant”, got translated as “… a virgin will get pregnant”.
May 4, 2011 at 12:39 PM #693361Participant[quote=Shadowfax]
Well…? Now you have to go there….[/quote]It’s too long to type up everything in detail, but here’s the outline.
– The only evangelist who possibly could have seen live Jesus and his mother is Mark. Mark does not say a single word about his birth.
– Luke & Matthew never met Jesus (both these Gospels were recorded about 50 years after his death, most likely by Greeks) and most of their narrative material is simply copied verbatim from Mark.
– Birth stories are among the few pieces of narrative information which Luke & Matthew added to the content from Mark.
– Birth stories of Luke & Matthew have nothing in common except for the mention of Bethlehem, and they explicitly contradict each other in some places. This is exactly what you’d expect if two people independently created fictional accounts of the same event.
– The purpose of these fictional accounts is to “retroactively fulfill” the prophecy of Micah 5:2 and to harmonize the fact that Jesus was known to be out of Nazareth (a one-horse town on the outskirts of Israel, three days walk from the capital), with the Jewish expectation that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (a suburb of Jerusalem).
– The virgin birth was likewise inserted to “fulfill” the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. This part is particularly embarrassing to Christians, because it only came up because someone read Isaiah in Greek translation, which was garbled in process, and a phrase that should have meant “…the girl [as in, some specific girl that is standing near the speaker, or at least whose identity is implicitly understood both by the speaker and the listener] is or will soon be pregnant”, got translated as “… a virgin will get pregnant”.
May 4, 2011 at 12:48 PM #692201briansd1
GuestWow! I’m impressed Eugene.
I wish that our intelligence services would dissect the scriptures with the same zeal they looked for Osama Bin Laden.
We might then have some definitive answers on Jesus and the Virgin Mary.
May 4, 2011 at 12:48 PM #692276GuestWow! I’m impressed Eugene.
I wish that our intelligence services would dissect the scriptures with the same zeal they looked for Osama Bin Laden.
We might then have some definitive answers on Jesus and the Virgin Mary.
May 4, 2011 at 12:48 PM #692875GuestWow! I’m impressed Eugene.
I wish that our intelligence services would dissect the scriptures with the same zeal they looked for Osama Bin Laden.
We might then have some definitive answers on Jesus and the Virgin Mary.
May 4, 2011 at 12:48 PM #693022GuestWow! I’m impressed Eugene.
I wish that our intelligence services would dissect the scriptures with the same zeal they looked for Osama Bin Laden.
We might then have some definitive answers on Jesus and the Virgin Mary.
May 4, 2011 at 12:48 PM #693371GuestWow! I’m impressed Eugene.
I wish that our intelligence services would dissect the scriptures with the same zeal they looked for Osama Bin Laden.
We might then have some definitive answers on Jesus and the Virgin Mary.
May 4, 2011 at 2:05 PM #692264Shadowfax
ParticipantI have to appreciate scholarship vs. dogma. Nice sampling, Eugene. If I ever have too much time on my hands, I’d love to read about the history of the early years of christianity–not as religion but more along the lines of what you say here.
It’s fascinating/horrifying that people take these writings as “fact” when they were predominantly written by every day Greeks or Romans, not “god”. Poor record keeping and translation (ancient Aramaic anyone?) or copying errors and missing chapters–it all has an effect on the meaning. Not to mention King James’ own political agenda back in the day.
May 4, 2011 at 2:05 PM #692339ParticipantI have to appreciate scholarship vs. dogma. Nice sampling, Eugene. If I ever have too much time on my hands, I’d love to read about the history of the early years of christianity–not as religion but more along the lines of what you say here.
It’s fascinating/horrifying that people take these writings as “fact” when they were predominantly written by every day Greeks or Romans, not “god”. Poor record keeping and translation (ancient Aramaic anyone?) or copying errors and missing chapters–it all has an effect on the meaning. Not to mention King James’ own political agenda back in the day.
May 4, 2011 at 2:05 PM #692940ParticipantI have to appreciate scholarship vs. dogma. Nice sampling, Eugene. If I ever have too much time on my hands, I’d love to read about the history of the early years of christianity–not as religion but more along the lines of what you say here.
It’s fascinating/horrifying that people take these writings as “fact” when they were predominantly written by every day Greeks or Romans, not “god”. Poor record keeping and translation (ancient Aramaic anyone?) or copying errors and missing chapters–it all has an effect on the meaning. Not to mention King James’ own political agenda back in the day.
May 4, 2011 at 2:05 PM #693087ParticipantI have to appreciate scholarship vs. dogma. Nice sampling, Eugene. If I ever have too much time on my hands, I’d love to read about the history of the early years of christianity–not as religion but more along the lines of what you say here.
It’s fascinating/horrifying that people take these writings as “fact” when they were predominantly written by every day Greeks or Romans, not “god”. Poor record keeping and translation (ancient Aramaic anyone?) or copying errors and missing chapters–it all has an effect on the meaning. Not to mention King James’ own political agenda back in the day.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.