Destruction of Families: A False Prophecy

JosephAlward

The author of the Matthew “gospel” was by far the most unreliable of the Bible’s writers, as evidenced by his appalling lack of understanding of the Old Testament and his willingness to imagine that it was filled with prophecies of the coming savior.

He was wrong about Jesus’ triumphant ride into Jerusalem, about Jesus being born of a virgin, about his being born in Bethlehem, about being called a Nazarene, about Herod ordering the slaughter of the innocent children after Jesus’ birth, about Judas’ thirty pieces of silver, and many other “events” in the life of Jesus because he evidently completely misunderstood or misrepresented stories in the Old Testament.

Readers don’t have to take my word for it. The evidence is on display in the articles in the “False Prophecy” section of the directory at the web site at

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

One of the more ridiculous prophecy-fulfillment attempts by Matthew concerns a speech he says Jesus made about the family unit. Matthew's source for this story is the book of Micah, in which a decayed society and its corrupt rulers are described in disparaging terms:

“The godly have been swept from the land…For a son dishonors his father, a daughter rises up against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law ... a man's enemies are the members of his own household. “(Micah 7:2-6)

Matthew must have only half-remembered what the passage above was about because Matthew took the Micah passage to mean that destruction of families was something that Jesus wanted to accomplish. Here is what Matthew said Jesus said:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "`a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' (Matthew 10:34-36)

So, Matthew thinks Jesus came to the earth bringing a sword to sow disharmony among family members. How could such a thing be true about the “Jesus” true-believers love and revere? The answer is, it cannot be true; Jesus couldn’t have said such a thing. This is just yet one more in a long list of silly prophecy-fulfillment stories manufactured by Matthew from misunderstood or misremembered Old Testament stories, foolishly thought by him to be prophecies of the coming messiah.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Introspection

Actually, this is a message that is found in many world religions if you examine closely, it is rather short sighted to focus on the biblical examples. Of course, I doubt it's to be taken literally. Simply put, interpersonal relationships are dependent upon the individuals involved, if an individual goes through some kind of dramatic change then any relationship with that individual automatically changes, whether it be familial ties or anything else.

This could be applied to the JW shunning policy: A member of the family becomes enlightened regarding the religion and chooses not to follow it anymore, but if the rest of the family regards him as apostate then there will certainly be disharmony.

JosephAlward

Why do you think Jesus didn't intend for his words to be taken literally? He said that he didn't come in peace, so that must have meant he came to disrupt, and we see confirmation of that in his subsequent statement that he came to turn man against his family.

Now, either Jesus really said this and obviously meant it, or else Matthew was wrong, and Jesus didn't say it. I believe the evidence points strongly to the latter.

Introspection

Well, thank you for retracting that statement about what I believe. Unfortunately my previous post was lost when I clicked reply, so I'll try to make this one short.

I think it would be worth pointing out that there's a difference between meaning something literally and not meaning it at all. Basically, my point is simply that a statement like this has to be seen in a larger context, and basically that is renunciation, or being in the world but not of it. (however, as I said this is not limited to Christianity) To take the example of someone who choose to leave the witness religion, he may not choose to leave the family, but obviously they're not going to like what he has to say about the organization etc. In fact, as we know it is usually the witnesses who shun the one who leave. Now you can say the person who left caused the division, heck maybe it was an apostate site like this that "caused" the division in their family, because the information they gained would be a necessary cause, right? But isn't that a rather limited picture of what's actually going on? Someone can say "www.jehovahs-witness.com breaks up families" or something, or hey take it a step farther and say ex-JWs destroy people's faiths. "Apostates" don't come in peace either, I suppose.. I'm really not so interested in discussing how the bible is questionable here and there in terms of what some believe it to mean, (including bible writers, of course I don't know any of them personally) but since this is a rather broad principle that is not limited to the bible I felt it needed to be addressed as such.

JosephAlward

Introspection notes, "I'm really not so interested in discussing how the bible is questionable"

Alward responds:

My principle concern is the errancy of the Bible, so I guess there's a mismatch here. Thanks for your observations though.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Bang

Didn't you hear:
"Don't suppose I've come to condone the things that you do, leading to death. I didn't come here for that - I've brought you justice and the truth about yourselves; this is going to cause divisions within households, because many will try and insist on keeping their unjust ways, and justify it by accusing their own family members."

Christians honour and bring honour to their parents in the humble refusal to partake in worldly ways, regardless of who their parents are, and if they become without parents, well, they are accepted and adopted by God in any case.
The rebeliousness written of in Micah is the opposite case, i.e. the worldly ways of some being brought to bear against just family members.

Bang

JosephAlward

Bang writes, “Christians honour and bring honour to their parents in the humble refusal to partake in worldly ways”

Alward responds:

Bang, I don’t know where you imagine such a teaching comes from, but it’s at complete odds with what the Bible really teaches. Do not the “worldly ways” you speak of include enjoying a drink of wine, making love to your wife, and finding joy in working with one’s hands? If so, then your beliefs are at complete odds with what the Bible teaches:

“So I commend the enjoyment of life, because nothing is better for a man under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad.” (Ecclesiastes 8:15)

“Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do...Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love...Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might” (Ecclesiastes 9:7-11)

So, you see, Bang, the Bible teaches that “there is nothing better” than to eat and drink with gladness, and to enjoy making love to your wife, and working with your hands. These are surely worldly enjoyments, are they not? If not, why not?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Bang

Joseph writes:
<< Do not the “worldly ways” you speak of include enjoying a drink of wine >>

No, I wasn't referring to eating and drinking, and other such human activities - just as Matthew didn't mean, "I'm here to stir up trouble between good folk, and that's my thing".

You may display a problem that psychologists call the fundamental attribution error; after reading 'partake' you seemed to head straight for ideas regarding bodily intake, etc. - and similar types of things with reading the Bible. "Be careful how you hear"

Bang

JosephAlward

Bang,

Your response is nonresponsive; it is nothing more than a denial of my characterization. You didn't answer my question, so I'll repeat it and ask a few more.

You said, “Christians honour and bring honour to their parents in the humble refusal to partake in worldly ways," but I argued that the Bible teaches that “there is nothing better” than to eat and drink with gladness, and to enjoy making love to your wife, and working with your hands. These are surely worldly enjoyments, are they not? If not, why not?

Why is enjoying a glass of wine not a worldly way?

Why is enjoying making love to your wife not a worldly way?

Why is enjoying working with your hands not a worldly way?

While you're explaining why these are not worldly ways, please also explain what you think are worldly ways, and point to the Bible verses which support you view. If you cannot do this, why will the forum not have the right to believe that there is no such Bible teaching?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Bang

Joseph writes:
<< You said, "Christians honour and bring honour to their parents in the humble refusal to partake in worldly ways," but I argued that the Bible teaches that "there is nothing better" than to eat and drink with gladness >>

That's right - that's how you interpreted what I wrote, but it's not what I meant. Why is it that you didn't hear worldly ways as 'the self-righteousness and self-important desires of men'. It's in the hearing, like with Matthew's writing - spiritual language doesn't revolve around the rules of english, but rather on the hearing of the listener.

And what did I mean by 'hearing'?

Bang

Destruction of Families: A False Prophecy

Share this