Strange things about Jesus

by Stephen John Gault 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Leolaia

  I've got posts on some of your points:

  1. Has it occured to you that nowhere in the old testament is the holy spirit mentioned. It did not exist.

  See my post on the Holy Spirit: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/69107/1.ashx. The Holy Spirit is related to the "Spirit of Wisdom" and "Spirit of God" of the OT (cf. Genesis 41:38-39; Exodus 31:3-4; Numbers 24:4, 16; Deuteronomy 34:9; 1 Kings 17:24; Isaiah 11:2), and the phrase "Holy Spirit" or "Spirit of Holiness" (which itself is late) does occur in Isaiah 63:9-14.

  4. Don't you find it strange that only Mathew says anything about Herod killing Jewish babies under two and Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt when none of the other do, nor does Josephus say anything about such a significant event, and why did John the baptis's parents not flee as well?

  There is a very straightforward explantation of this: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/82425/1.ashx. The author of Matthew was influenced by the story of Moses in Exodus and in haggadaic tradition and thus the story of Herod killing babies is based on the story of Pharaoh killing babies, and the story of the escape to Egypt to hide from Herod is based on the story of the escape to Midian to hide from Pharaoh (see, for instance, how the divine call to return to the land of Israel in Matthew 2:19-20 is a verbatim copying of the divine call for Moses to return to Egypt from Midian in Exodus 4:19). Even the story of Joseph divorcing Mary and the angel's appearance to Joseph has a basis in the Moses traditions. Luke, on the other hand, was not influenced by the Moses traditions, and thus has nothing of the divorce, the killing of babies, the flight to Egypt, etc. The author of Luke was instead influenced by the nativity traditions of the prophet Samuel in 1 Samuel 1-2, and thus has constructed quite a different story.

  5. Did it ever ocur to you that Mathews verbose rendition of Jesus' death paints saints getting ressurected and going into the city, where did they get clothes, how long had they been dead, did they return to their old wives and girlfriends, what happened to the people who were now married to these women and occupied their houses?

  This was discussed here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/63386/974023/post.ashx#974023. This episode in Matthew is a very unique Matthean addition to the Markan narrative, although JD Crossan suspects that the "cross that spoke" in the Gospel of Peter represents a communal resurrection similar to that described here. The real problem of this story is that it flatly contradicts Pauline theology (remember that Matthew arose in a non-Pauline Christian community which may have even seen itself in opposition to Paul), and it was awkwardly edited after the fact to make it harmonize with Paul, but the gloss actually fails to resolve the difficulty and even introduces a new bizarre aspect to the story (e.g. that the resurrected dead had to wait in their tombs until Jesus was raised on the third day).
• 

  observador

  Leolaia,

  please help me understand a few things here. I appreciate your research and posts, but sometimes I can't draw a conclusion from some posts.

  For example, you said:

  The author of Matthew was influenced by the story of Moses in Exodus and in haggadaic tradition and thus the story of Herod killing babies is based on the story of Pharaoh killing babies, and the story of the escape to Egypt to hide from Herod is based on...

  So, in other words, are you saying that the aspects you mention in the report of Mathew simply did not happen; that he simply invented them? Or, are you saying that the events happened but in a small scale and he embelished them based on an old story/tradition?

  Then you say this:

  Luke, on the other hand, was not influenced by the Moses traditions, and thus has nothing of the divorce, the killing of babies, the flight to Egypt, etc.

  Seems like Luke's report is more trustworthy... but then you say:

  The author of Luke was instead influenced by the nativity traditions of the prophet Samuel in 1 Samuel 1-2, and thus has constructed quite a different story.

  Again I ask basically the same questions: Did the events reported by the author of Luke happen? Not happened? or happened but not exactly the way he described them?

  In a more personal note: how trustworthy, in YOUR opinion, are the accounts of the gospel in a 1-to-10 scale?

  (I have myself pointed out some contradictions in the gospels but never thought that whole chunks of story could be mere invention of the author...)

  Thanks a lot.

  Observador.
• 

  observador

  bttt
• 

  observador

  bttt
• 

  Leolaia

  So, in other words, are you saying that the aspects you mention in the report of Mathew simply did not happen; that he simply invented them? Or, are you saying that the events happened but in a small scale and he embelished them based on an old story/tradition?

  You're certainly entitled to believe on faith that the gospels consist of undiluted history. The historicity of the gospel stories has long been subject of academic debate (cf. Robert Funk et al.'s The Acts of Jesus), along with the very historicity of Jesus himself. What I am pointing out is that these stories are literary creations and depend heavily on older narratives in the OT. Without a thorough knowledge of the OT in the Greek of the Septuagint, this fact may not be so apparent. But once one takes a closer look at it, it becomes clear that many stories are based not only on the OT but their very wording reflects the distinctive Greek version which at times varies from that of the Hebrew. Crossan's The Cross That Spoke is a thorough analysis of the literary composition of the passion/resurrection stories, the Acts of Jesus has lots of examples of literary dependence in the gospels, and Helms' Gospel Fictions is probably the most accessible introduction to the sources and composition of the gospels. The same literary processes can be found looking at other literature, where new stories were put together based on motifs from earlier works. My personal opinion is that the gospel writers saw Jesus as a latter-day Moses (as a reinterpreter of the Law, as the "prophet" promised by Moses), Elijah (as a healer, miracle-worker), or analoguous figure, and thus believed that his life would have recapitulated aspects of their lives as recorded in the OT, as he was greater than them. Whether these stories may have a historical "core" is another question, which is objectively unanswerable but debatable on a case-by-case basis depending on one's methodology and assumptions.
• 

  observador

  Thank you!
• 

  Stephen John Gault

  " There is a very straightforward explantation of this: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/82425/1.ashx. The author of Matthew was influenced by the story of Moses in Exodus and in haggadaic tradition and thus the story of Herod killing babies is based on the story of Pharaoh killing babies, and the story of the escape to Egypt to hide from Herod is based on the story of the escape to Midian to hide from Pharaoh (see, for instance, how the divine call to return to the land of Israel in Matthew 2:19-20 is a verbatim copying of the divine call for Moses to return to Egypt from Midian in Exodus 4:19). Even the story of Joseph divorcing Mary and the angel's appearance to Joseph has a basis in the Moses traditions. Luke, on the other hand, was not influenced by the Moses traditions, and thus has nothing of the divorce, the killing of babies, the flight to Egypt, etc. The author of Luke was instead influenced by the nativity traditions of the prophet Samuel in 1 Samuel 1-2, and thus has constructed quite a different story."
  
  Are you even listening to yourself? So this "inspired by God" writer, fabricates a fictitious event, based a real or imagenery historical event, poses it as fact, and you justify his lie! But you are right in one aspect - all of those writers were all influenced by the myths of the time. Each civilization had their own account of the gods copulating with humans, producing progeny, who die a totured death. The story of Jesus was just the Jews imitating the Greeks and the Egyptions, citing imaginary events as fact, as did this Matthew of yours.
  
  5. Did it ever ocur to you that Mathews verbose rendition of Jesus' death paints saints getting ressurected and going into the city, where did they get clothes, how long had they been dead, did they return to their old wives and girlfriends, what happened to the people who were now married to these women and occupied their houses?
  
  "This was discussed here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/63386/974023/post.ashx#974023. This episode in Matthew is a very unique Matthean addition to the Markan narrative, although JD Crossan suspects that the "cross that spoke" in the Gospel of Peter represents a communal resurrection similar to that described here. The real problem of this story is that it flatly contradicts Pauline theology (remember that Matthew arose in a non-Pauline Christian community which may have even seen itself in opposition to Paul), and it was awkwardly edited after the fact to make it harmonize with Paul, but the gloss actually fails to resolve the difficulty and even introduces a new bizarre aspect to the story (e.g. that the resurrected dead had to wait in their tombs until Jesus was raised on the third day)."
  
  Thanks for your honesty here. Once again, this inspired writer fabricates. He is an impeached witness. If he will lie and fabricate anything, his entire testimony has to be discounted. He is a liar!
• 

  Stephen John Gault

  How about Jesus' god?
  
  A god that blesses wanton murder of women and children (Num 31:17)
  offers little girl virgins as spoils of war (Num 31:18),
  demands virgin sacrifices, (Num. 31:35 and 40),
  that women are possessions (Deut. 24:1)
  revengeful, (Rom 12:18)
  wrathful, (Na 1:2)
  screws up and then regrets it, (Gen. 6:6, Ex 32:13, Num. 23:19)
  angry and jealous, (Deut. 6:15, Ex. 34:14)
  exacting (Ex. 20,5, Deut 5:8 and 6:15),
  fickle (Ex 20:5, Deut 24:16)
  speaks of doing evil to people (Ex. 32:14),
  encourages gambling (Jos. 14:2)
  instructing people to lie (Ex. 3:18, 8:27),
  alters the mental state of an otherwise accommodating ruler and then destroys him for it (Ex. 7:3, 7:14, 10:1, 27) to name a few.
  
  Sounds exactly like "in the image of man, man created god", a dispicable one at that.
• 

  Jeffro

  Where was Jesus in the days following his baptism? Off in the mountains for 40 days (Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12,13 & Luke 4:1-13)? Or at the wedding in Cana (John 1:29,35,43; 2:1)?
  
  
  Where was John the Baptist when Jesus selected his first disciples (starting from Matthew 4:18, Mark 1:16, Luke 5:1, John 1:35)? In prison (Matthew 4:12, Mark 1:14, Luke 3:20)? Or with his disciples (John 1:35)?
• 

  Stephen John Gault

  How about Jesus' lack of knowledge of the 10 commandments - Mark 10:19, "do not defraud" is not in here.
  
  How come Jesus never mentioned Adam and Eve, or creation?
  
  Joseph never impregnated Mary to conceive Jesus, and therefore Jesus could not have been from teh bloodline of David. No sperm, no DNA, no bloodline.
  
  King Herod? The Romans did not have kings!
  
  Which idiot will have supposedly 2 million people wander around a dessert for 40 years for reward of the promised land, that little piece of shit earth? Wandering to Hawaii one can understand, but Israel/Palestine. What a dump!
  
  Jesus says: "do not swear at all, neither by heaven..." contradicting Deut 6:13 and Isa 45:23.
  
  Jesus says pray in private Matt 6:6 and Apostle Paul contradicts 1 Tim 2:8.
  
  Matt 8:32 Jesus killed an owner's herd of swine (from where as swine were prohibited in Judea and Galilea?) Wanton destruction of someone else's property. Did he pay recompense? Then he was a thief, a robber and a vandalist. Matt 8:28 talks about 2 demon possessed men and Luk 8:27 says it was only one.
  
  Matt 10:28. Jesus talks about the soul surviving death?
  
  Matt 10:23 - these poor sods have been fleeing for milliniums already!
  
  Matt 12:40 - three days? Friday afternoon to Sunday morning = 3 days? Mark 8:31. Contradicted by Matt 16:21. ON the third day vs. after three days. Matt 27:63.
  
  Matt 17:1 - 6 days later, Luk 9:28 - 8 days later.
  
  Matt 27:3 vs. Acts 1:18 did he give the money back or didn't he?
  
  Matt 27:5 vs. Acts 1:18, did he hang himself or suffer spontaneous combustion?
  
  Matt 27:28 vs. John 19:2 - which color was it?
  
  If anyone is interested, I will do hundreds more.