Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward 109 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JosephAlward

  funkyderek notes,
  

  Nobody writing in the first century seems to have heard of Jesus at all.

  That's exactly right. Furthermore, the gospel writers alleged that extraordinary events surrounding the life of Jesus occurred, but nobody but the writers knew about them. Consider, for example, the story of the slaughter of the innocent children:

  The wise men found Jesus but didn't return to tell Herod, who became "exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts (Greek horios: districts) thereof, from two years old and under." (Matthew 2:16)

  The story of the murderous Herod is found only in the gospel according to Matthew; nowhere else in the Bible is it mentioned, and no Jewish or Roman historian of that time says a word about this sensational event. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (110 AD), who went out of his way to record every misdeed of despots and tyrants, was completely silent. Silent also was Josephus (40 AD), the Jewish historian who provided a detailed account of all the lesser evil-doings of Herod up to the end of his life; not a word did he write about Herod's massacre of the innocent children.

  Apologists can look until they’re blind, but they will find not a single account of this amazing event outside the writings of Matthew; that’s probably because Matthew either was repeating an urban myth of that time, or made this story up himself.

  And what about the miraculous feedings on the shore of the Sea of Galilee? Jesus was alleged to have fed to satisfaction 5,000 people (Mark 6:32-42), with food left over, with only a handful of bread and fish, then days later fed another 4,000 the same way (Mark 8:1-9). Surely thousands of the participants in these "miracle" feedings would have made known their experiences to journalists and historians of that time, and passed along first-person accounts down through the generations. However, there exists not a single historical account of these events outside of the gospels. The most likely reason for this complete lack of evidence of the events is that they never occurred in the first place; they’re just as fictional as the “Jesus” Mark, Matthew, and Luke wrote about.

  And why did nobody but Matthew know about all of those gruesome revived corpses chatting up the folks in Jerusalem?

  And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." (Matthew 27:45-53)

  
  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

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

  TR

  RWC,

  If Jesus was not a real person Peter and Paul and the others would have never been believed to begin with. They went to their death preaching about him as the Son of God. Would they have done that if they knew it was all made up and was a lie?

  What does that prove? Ever hear of Jim Jones, Osama bin Laden, David Koresh, Watchtower Society?

  Rem,

  I tend to agree with your thoughts on the Jesus myth.

  TR

  I'm gonna make mince meat outta that Osama!
• 

  Abaddon

  Pom; Well, essentially, I think we have reached a point where we agree to disagree.

  To me, your logic revolves around an assumption that god exists.

  The evidence you cite for this, outside of the Bible, does not convince me of this. The evidence cited for the Bible being an infallable and accurate guide does not convince me of this. The evidence in the Bible does not convince me of this.

  It might convince you, but it doesn't convince me. This is just a fact, and not a judgement of relative rightness.

  Now, my logic revolves around the presumption that evidence is required for proof.

  I find evidence for evolution; micro-evolution is demonstrable fact, there are the strongest evidences for macro-evolution, abiogenesis is the subject of a number of reasonable theories (and there's even evidence of quasi-live pseudo-organisms, like prions, that show the ability of a bunch of chemicals to replicate themselves by some means has occured more than once), the arguement of irredcable complexity is not sound, there are theories that demonstrate how the Universe could come into being without there being some entity to start the process.

  The lack of proof of god is a convincing factor, for me, in not believing in god. As I've commented, the lack of proof is illogical given the reputed qualities of god, so either god doesn't have these qualities, or doesn't exist. I feel my logic is sound, and the only way you have argued with this logic is by scripture, which I do not accept as inspired, as it's not provably inspired.

  For example, Paul saying that people without the truth doing the right thing is proof of god is, to me, just clever doublethink. Arguing that people would say the world's always been like this when someone prohecies the end of the world to them, as Jesus did, is also just doublethink.

  Likewise, support for obscurity within the Bible seem to be attempts by the original writers to make the group of people who understand the Bible a limited elite one, and to make sure they didn't make any definative statenments that could easily be disproved. They are just as obvious arguements to incoporate in the Bible as the other two examples as above, exactly the sort of thing you would expect someone to put in.

  How can I say this? Read other religious books; it's a pattern. Aphorisms and truisms interspersed with the unprovable.

  All this might convince me, but it doesn't convince you. This is just a fact, and not a judgement of relative rightness.

  I find it illogical that you are trying to follow the Bible's account literally, when it contradicts science, dismissing such things as 'unproven conjecture' from your point of view (reasonably sound scientific theory from my point of view), when your attempts to support the Bible literally are just as guilty of 'unproven conjecture' from my point of view (reasonably sound theological theory from your point of view).

  So, I can follow the sequential logical steps you are making, but they are based on a premise I do not agree with.

  Say you're reading a book, when a character is acting in a logical fashion, but the situation is illogical; A Midsummer Night's Dream is a good example. The characters are logical, but the scenario is obviously fantastical.

  Your arguement is logical, but is based, in what to me is a fantastical Universe.

  That being my opinion does make me better and you worse or anything.

  It just mean we differ in our opinion in the answers to the search for answers to the question Why?

  Thus, as we are both sincere, I say again;

  The consonance of sincereity and the potential disparity of outcomes for us as individuals is a problem for me.

  I honestly don't expect to be right. But I am convinced I am right as I can be, and am sincere in those beliefs. The idea that this might condemn me, or equally sincere Muslims, or a Hindus, or more liberal Christians, to some kind of punishment jars with any understanding I have of god.

  People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
• 

  RWC

  Abaddon and others,

  How can you assume that simply because the number of people in India who have converted to Christianity in India is small that it is the fault of the missionaries ( or the God that sent them) or some inability of the people to believe? Just because the message is not believed doesn't mean the message is not correct. There is no doubt that conducting missionary work in India is difficult but why is God being unfair if people go there in his name and only have limited sucess? Is it the fault of God or the unwillingness of the people to believe?

  I disagree with the notion that other contemporary historians did not mention Jesus. Josephus did mention Jesus as did Tactius. The fact that they did not mention the details of his miracles is not evidence that they did not occur. Josephus was a Jewish historian and Tactius was a Roman historian. What makes you think they would ever write more than a passing mention of Jesus. In fact when he is mentioned it is in negative contexts which is consistent with their point of view.

  The idea that Jesus was a mythical man that did not exist is unfounded. First, the Gospel writers gave specifc facts of when he was born, what he did and where and the people who were involved in his death. They wrote at a time when these facts could have easily been verified or denied. The movement would have never taken off as it did if the writings were considered at the time to be exaggerations or outright lies. This is not the same with other mythical beings such as Hercales and others whose births, deeds and deaths were in some far distant past without any details.

  Any comparison to Hercales ( I am assuming you are referring to the Greek Hercales who later became Hercules in Rome) is a distorion of the Hercales story at best. Just as an example, Hercales was not born of a virgin, he was born from an affair between Zeus and a mortal woman. This angered Zeus' wife who than persecuted Hercales to the point that he went insane and killed his wife and children. When Hercales died he went to live on Mt. Olympus. There is no relation to this story and that of Jesus.

  The idea that Jim Jones and the others died for what they believed to be true is not the same thing as the apostles dying for what you are contemplating is something they knowingly made up. In other words your argument is that these men intentionally played a hoax on everyone and wrote things that they knew were untrue to support it and than died for what they knew was a lie. Paul was broke, homeless, beaten numerous times, he was shipwrecked four times, stoned almost to the point of death and ultimately died for his faith. This was all after he was living a comfortable living as a tentmaker and a Jewish official. Unless you can prove he was insane than why would he make something up and continue with it if he knew it was really the story of Hercales? Also, unlike all of the people that were mentioned he none of this for his personal gain or benefit. The same is true for Peter and the others. Matthew was a tax collector who was apparently wealthy and had no reason to give that up on a made up lie.

  Also, before you tie the attributes of Jesus as described in the Gospels to other myths, you must have evidence that these attributes existed in these mythical beings before the Gospels were written. Otherwise it is more reasonable to assume that these attributes were added to these mythical creatures in response to Jesus and the growth of Christianity, not the other way around.

  Finally, the account of the Council of Nicea is incorrect. The council of Nicea was called to debate the question of whether Jesus was God or was he a created being. It was not called to close the canon on the Bible. Additionally, the books of the bible that were ultimately canonnized had to go through a close examination before they were considered inspired and thus part of the canon. The first test was whether the apostles who knew Jesus agreed with them as being accurate. Secondly, these were the books that the early churches had been using for sometime before they were cannonized, thus they were already accepted by the church where others had not been. To say that at the Council of Nicea that a group of bishops sat down and decided what would be in the Bible is simply not historically accurate.
• 

  JosephAlward

  In other words your argument is that these men intentionally played a hoax on everyone and wrote things that they knew were untrue to support it and than died for what they knew was a lie.

  I don't think there's any evidence that any of the gospel writers were playing a "hoax" on their readers, or that any of the early Christians died for a "lie." The gospel writers probably sincerely believed that the savior the Old Testament prophesied actually DID come to earth decades earlier, and that this savior therefore MUST have fulfilled what they believed were the Old Testament prophecies regarding this man. Thus, these writers scoured the Old Testament for as many of these "prophecies" as they could find, and used them as the basis of stories concerning events in the life of a "Jesus" which they truly believed MUST have occurred if this man was really the savior. They were just filling in the "missing record," so to speak. There was no dishonesty involved.

  A good example of a gospel writer having "Jesus" fulfill prophecy is found in the story of the feeding of the five thousand. Mark just assumed that the savior would do the same miraculous things that the divine figures of the Old Testament did in order to prove to observers that he was the son of God, so Mark had Jesus, for example, miraculously multiply the loaves of bread almost exactly as Elisha had done. Here is the evidence that Mark had "Jesus" emulate Elisha:

  A man came from Baal Shalishah, bringing the man of God twenty loaves of barley …"Give it to the people to eat," Elisha said. "How can I set this before a hundred men?" his servant asked. But Elisha answered, "Give it to the people to eat. For this is what the LORD says: `They will eat and have some left over.'" Then he set it before them, and they ate and had some left over, according to the word of the LORD. (2 Kings 4:43-44)

  But he answered, "You give them something to eat." They said to him, "That would take eight months of a man's wages! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?" "How many loaves do you have?" he asked. "Go and see." When they found out, they said, "Five--and two fish." …Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to set before the people. He also divided the two fish among them all….and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish. The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand.

  The Old Testament antecedents for Mark's miraculous feeding story are much more numerous than the few cited above. Interested readers will find the complete analysis at

  * http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Loaves_and_Fishes.htm

  There are many other examples of gospel writers "filling in the record"; they can be found at the web site in the signature below.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

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

  pomegranate

  Right.

  Have a Merry Christmas.
• 

  RWC

  The feeding of the five thousand occurs in Matthew (14:25), Mark and Luke(9:12). Since Matthew was one of the twelve he is counted as being there on the day that the five thousand were fed. Does this mean that he simply imagined that these people were fed or is he lying about it?
• 

  rem

  RWC,

  Sure, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are claimed to be written by the named authors, but taking into account the dating of the texts, coupled with the fact that pseudonomous writing was very common back then, it is highly unlikely that they were the real authors. The more likely scenario is that oral traditions were collected and written by anonymous writers who used the names of these popular figures for added authenticity.

  This can also be seen in the many other gospel accounts that are not in the Bible cannon, such as the Gospels of Thomas, Nicodemus, and Bartholomew. There are many many more as well. You might want to check out The Other Bible Edited by Willis Barnstone, which has a collection of many writings that did not make it into the Catholic and Protestant canons. Also, there is much information about Pseudonomous writings that is helpful. Since you are a Catholic, you may already be aware that Catholic scholarship has shown that many canonical books are clearly pseudonomous writings. Check out any Catholic study bible for more information.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 

  JosephAlward

  Nowhere in the book called "Matthew" do any of the writers of that book claim to be a "Matthew," let alone the "Matthew" who was alleged to be one of the apostles.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

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

  JosephAlward

  The idea that Jesus was a mythical man that did not exist is unfounded. First, the Gospel writers gave specifc facts of when he was born, what he did and where and the people who were involved in his death. They wrote at a time when these facts could have easily been verified or denied. The movement would have never taken off as it did if the writings were considered at the time to be exaggerations or outright lies.

  The "specific facts" you speak of were not facts at all; they were probably thought to be "facts" by the writers, but they were just assuming that the savior the Old Testament spoke of would naturally do all of those things the Old Testament said the savior would do when he came. The gospel writers were writing more than three decades after they alleged this "Jesus" had died; the writers and their readers who wanted to believe the son of God had come to earth just assumed that the stories about "Jesus" were true; they never imagined they were lies or exaggerations.

  A very common--but not very carefully considered--apologetic is that if the stories the gospel writers wrote had not been true, then "they could have easily been...denied," as RWC claimed. However, this is begging the question of Jesus' existence. If the "Jesus" the gospel writers described never in fact existed, then there would have been nobody who could have said, for example,

  I was with Jesus everytime he went to the Sea of Galilee, and never ONCE did he miraculously multiply the bread. Furthermore, I walked with him everywhere during the last three years of his life, and he never once cured anyone of a disease, or expelled any demons.

  You see, RWC, if Jesus never existed, OF COURSE there would not have been a single person who would could testify that Jesus did not do something. You could write a story today about a miracle-worker who moves about your city curing people--but be careful not to give the names and addresses of those folks, and fifty years from now someone could find your diary and argue that the stories you wrote MUST be true because there is no record of anyone EVER saying those things did not happen. Do you understand that your reasoning is circular?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

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