Yeah, anyway, in Chapter 11, Matthew reiterates how Jesus sent his posse out to teach in the cities, which never happened since someone would have recorded it at the time. Then Matthew apparently forgets what he's written already and goes batshit insane and has John the Baptist ask if Jesus really is the Lord. Apparently God talking to Jesus when John baptized him wasn't sufficient proof for skeptic John the Baptist. Either that, or John was a complete idiot.

In 11:10, Matthew copies Malachi 3:1, which is said to prophesize the coming of John the Baptist. Except that as usual, Matthew is a fuck-up. Malachi states that Elijah is to come back and John the Baptist stated he was not Elijah in the Gospel of John. Ooops. Furthermore, the entire Elijah thing is ridiculous in and of itself. Once again, Jesus is relying on Old Testament scripture. He himself believes in the Old Testament. Christians who babble that the Old Testament is irrelevant or metaphor or that Yahweh being a complete dick in the Old Testament is irrelevant should think twice because they are contradicting the beliefs of Jesus.

In 11:11, Jesus states John the Baptist was the greatest of all humans who have ever walked the face of the earth, which is pretty good for a guy who sat around and stuffed people's heads under water.

Then Jesus babbles on a bit about how fucked up this generation is (like that's news) and finally loses his shit and condemns a list of cities to destruction because apparently every single person in every city didn't totally embrace him or his followers.

In 11:25, it is evident that part of the text is redacted since it has Jesus answering a non-existent question. Either that, or he was high. He calls on God as lord of not just heaven but also earth, which is interesting since it was established in Chapter 4 that Satan rules earth.

At the beginning of Chapter 12, Matthew endeavors to distance Jesus from the Pharisees, and by "endeavors" I mean "fails miserably". Jesus and his followers (now magically back among him when he sent them away in the last chapters) go through a field of corn and his followers are hungry so they eat the ears of corn...

Except...corn as Americans know it is a Native American vegetable. When Europeans and ancient peoples talk about corn, they are likely talking about wheat. I doubt you can eat wheat from the stalk. Now, it's also possible that Matthew is talking about barley or oats, which would make the verse more valid, but I daresay most American Christians think they are peeling off leaves and eating maize.

So because it's the Sabbath, the Pharisees freak out. Let's remember most of the other Jewish sects or schools of thought had just been wiped out by the Romans when Matthew wrote this and he was competing with the Pharisees for the hearts and minds of Jews, so it's natural he'd paint them as assholes. But even more interesting is Jesus's reply to the Pharisee phreak out. Jesus states that when David was hungry, he went into the temple and ate the shewbread. And Jesus states that there were people with David, justifying the fact that Jesus's followers are eating.

Except that Jesus is actually referencing 1 Samuel 21:1-6, where David enters the temple ALONE. Not with people. ALONE. It's likely Matthew hasn't a clue that this refers to 1 Samuel since he likely copied it from Mark 2:25-26. Difficulty: not only did Mark fuck up who went into the temple, he also fucked up the name of the high priest, which was Ahimelech, not Abiathar. Oh, you should see the logical knots that Christian apologists get themselves into trying to justify this one. Abiathar was Ahimelech's son. Apologist bastards claim that all this is okay since the Old Testament sometimes refers to people as XXX, son of YYY and Abiathar could have been referred to as Abiathar son of Ahimelech. Except that this is fucking bullshit. The text of 1 Samuel makes no such reference (and refers to this priest as Ahimelech several times) and clearly the high priest at the time is Ahimelech since Abiathar is not yet high priest since David is not yet king. This is established in multiple books of the Old Testament and by Jewish history. The apologists are just ignorant and stupid.

The second apologist line says, well, it doesn't matter. Doesn't matter? Really? Either Mark is wrong, or Jesus is wrong. If Mark is wrong, what else is he wrong about? If Jesus is wrong, then he's not really the Son of God, is he?

So after arguing with the Pharisees, Jesus goes out and heals many people (which he didn't since someone would have noticed), pissing the Pharisees off further. In 12:22, Jesus once again casts out a demon. Remember, Christians, demons exist!

In 12:30, Jesus states, quite harshly, that if one is not for him, one is against him, which contradicts Mark and Luke but not George W. Bush.

In 12:31-32, Jesus states that any sin is forgiven except one, blasphemy against the holy spirit. This can never be forgiven.
Want to see why this is sick? Start at 9:27:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zCB__0VRh0[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFwcBAd4ojA[/youtube]

Anyway, Jesus then rags on the current generation saying they are all vipers and in 12:37 states that people are saved or condemned based on their own words, which is a good trick, since the Gospel of John states it is actions and deeds that save or condemn, and Mark states it is through belief.

12:39-41 has multiple problems. Which I shall get to in my next post. I have to get back to bed.

Very interesting.
BTW wheat in those days would be a primitive version of todays crop. It actually would have looked like barley with very loose heads.
Looking forward to the next instalment.

NineOneFour wrote:Yeah, anyway, in Chapter 11, Matthew reiterates how Jesus sent his posse out to teach in the cities, which never happened since someone would have recorded it at the time.

Because we have really comprehensive records of all the preaching that happened in 1st century Galilee.

In 11:10, Matthew copies Malachi 3:1, which is said to prophesize the coming of John the Baptist. Except that as usual, Matthew is a fuck-up. Malachi states that Elijah is to come back and John the Baptist stated he was not Elijah in the Gospel of John. Ooops.

Why is the author of Matthew a douchebag because the author of John diasagrees with him?

Furthermore, the entire Elijah thing is ridiculous in and of itself. Once again, Jesus is relying on Old Testament scripture.

Truly shocking behaviour for a Jew.

In 11:25, it is evident that part of the text is redacted since it has Jesus answering a non-existent question.

Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't read like there has to be a question. Jesus is preaching and he says some stuff.

Except...corn as Americans know it is a Native American vegetable. When Europeans and ancient peoples talk about corn, they are likely talking about wheat. I doubt you can eat wheat from the stalk. Now, it's also possible that Matthew is talking about barley or oats, which would make the verse more valid, but I daresay most American Christians think they are peeling off leaves and eating maize.

I get the fact that you don't rate the author, but do you really think he was so thick that he'd describe his characters snacking on something completely inedible? If you think he's describing an indelible plant then there's a fair chance the mistake is yours. In any case, it has to be stuff you make bread from or the comparison with sacred bread wouldn't work.

Except that Jesus is actually referencing 1 Samuel 21:1-6, where David enters the temple ALONE. Not with people. ALONE.

Yes, he goes into the temple alone and gets bread for his companions. And Jesus allows his companions to eat the wheat (or whatever it is) here. It's not hard.

It's likely Matthew hasn't a clue that this refers to 1 Samuel since he likely copied it from Mark 2:25-26.

It's not exactly breaking news that Matthew copies from Mark.

Difficulty: not only did Mark fuck up who went into the temple, he also fucked up the name of the high priest, which was Ahimelech, not Abiathar.

What Mark says is "In the days of Abiathar the High Priest, he entered the house of God..." Abiathar was clearly around at the time as he enters the story two chapters later. He's then a major character in his capacity as High Priest. If this is an error it's no more severe than describing the time just before Lincoln's inauguration as "in the days of President Lincoln."

So after arguing with the Pharisees, Jesus goes out and heals many people (which he didn't since someone would have noticed), pissing the Pharisees off further. In 12:22, Jesus once again casts out a demon. Remember, Christians, demons exist!

Are you going to point and laugh at each individual supernatural claim? It's going to long thread...

Dude, there are many, many good criticisms of the Bible (and you have stumbled on a couple) but honestly, this is pretty lame. It doesn't reflect well.

Returning to Verses 12:39-41:

Problem #1: Jesus talks about Jonah being swallowed by a whale. Yes, he actually believes this story to be true. Which means either Matthew is fibbing or Jesus is a tool. Either way, it looks bad for Christians.

Problem #2: Jonah wasn't swallowed by a whale, but by a fish. As seen in Jonah 1:17. Whales are not fish, no matter how the apologists want to spin this. Probably by the time of Matthew, a fish large enough to swallow a man was ludicrous, so Matthew substituted a whale. Still it's crap, but this illustrates the stupidity of the Old Testament and the prevarication of Matthew.

It gets worse.

In 12:43-45, Jesus talks about unclean spirits and how they can leave and then return with seven additional unclean spirits to inhabit your body. No, really. He says that. Christians believe these unclean spirits to be demons. No, really.
http://www.bible-knowledge.com/interpre ... hew-12-45/

Yeah, I know, that's fucked up.

Apologists talk about how it's a metaphor for believing in Christ, yadda yadda yadda, but it's clear they don't understand what Jesus is rabbiting on about any more than anyone else does. In fact, the idea that he's talking about demonic possession makes more sense than what the 'liberal theogians' come up with, which is basically squat.

The last part of Chapter 12, we get Jesus's idea of family values, which is to ignore his family and embrace his followers as a substitute family. This has been widely interpreted, probably accurately, as a metaphor meant to tell the reader to put the church above all else, even family. Most objective people would naturally find this abhorrent.

On to Chapter 13, which has Jesus going down to the beach to catch some rays and a whole bunch of people gather (again, impossible) and he talks in a bunch of parables which are about as subtle as repeatedly being hit in the face with a rubber mallet. His disciples ask why is he talking shit instead of just making sense.

Jesus says in 13:11-13 that he speaks in parables in order to be as confusing as possible so that some people won't understand and won't be saved.

Which is fucked up.

The Skeptics Annotated Bible says of 13:12 "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.": Isn't this the Republican party platform?

Sorry, but LOL.

Matthew then has Jesus say that fucking over people fulfills a prophecy by Isaiah. He is talking about Isaiah 6:9-10, which is crazy, since this is a continuation of Isaiah 2 through 5, and is a prophecy not of the coming Messiah, but of the very last days of earth. Of course, this makes zero sense.

Matthew was obsessed with Isaiah, it's pretty clear.

This is followed in Chapter 13 with the incredibly boring and stupid Parable of the Sower. Yeah, we get it. If you plant good seeds, you get good results. And the people tearing up your crop is a nice rendition of the continuing Christian Persecution Complex (CPC), which should be in the DSV by now.

In 13:31-32, we start obsessing on mustard seeds, which to Matthew (and Jesus) is the smallest seed in the world. Except that it isn't. Oh, and Jesus thinks mustard seeds grow into trees, which they do not.

Yeah, man, I'll have some of those Grey Poupon seeds to grow a Grey Poupon tree. How about a Dijon tree?

Now, again, either Matthew is a lummox or Jesus is. Either way, it's bad for the Christians.

In 13:35, Matthew mistranslates Psalm 78:2-3. By now, you should be asking yourself if any part of the Gospel of Matthew is worth the paper it's printed on, and the answer is obviously no.

Gets worse.

In 13:36-50, the disciples ask for a bedtime story and Jesus talks about how God's holy and benign angels, full of love and forgiveness, will snag everyone who offends Jesus and cast them into hellfire for all eternity. Jesus seems especially happy about wailing and gnashing of teeth, which he repeats twice.

So then at the end of Chapter 13, Jesus returns to Nazareth and teaches to an unbelieving populace. Imagine if you will the sheer asininity of this. If some dude is walking around raising the fucking dead, somehow, I think people are going to believe that he's the Son of God, or at least something more than human.

In Chapter 14:1-12, shit gets real as Herod Antipas (this is not Herod, but a different guy) believes Jesus is John the Baptist reincarnated. Now, since John baptized Jesus, this is pretty stupid. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible points out that if so many people could be fooled that John reincarnated as Jesus, what does it say about the gullibility of the people who were convinced of Jesus's own resurrection?

Herod Antipas beheads John at the bidding of his stepdaughter Salome. Matthew is likely copying Mark Chapter 6 here. At least no one screwed up the timeline this time. Herod Antipas inherited some of Herod's kingdom and ruled it as a Roman client state. But one must ask: who gives a flying shit? These verses have little to do with Jesus and merely prefigure Jesus's own execution at the hands of Romans. But so what? Well, remember Matthew had a few scores to settle and he probably didn't like ethnic Jews who sided with Rome, Herod and Herod Antipas included. So he smeared them as much as possible.

Anyway, Jesus goes out into the desert to catch some more rays and then belatedly figures out that the desert contains no water or food. No shit. So he takes 5 loaves and 2 fishes and multiplies these until there is enough for the 5000 followers to eat.

Now, let's check that. FIVE THOUSAND followers? Yeah, no. There's no way ever that 5000 people followed anyone around without any contemporary commentary. Surely the Romans would have noticed this many people wandering around. It's typical of Matthew's exaggerations and bullshit.

Jesus then walks on water since someone forgot to tie up the boat (no, really - see how fucking lame this is?) and he has Simon Peter walk on water too.

This is more of a problem than most Christians want to acknowledge. Peter is able to walk on water because he follows Jesus and has faith. The followers of Jesus can perform miracles. But today, they cannot. So what happened to all the miracles? Seems that if God wanted people to follow Christianity, it would be pretty simple for Christians to just perform a few miracles. Who wouldn't follow someone who could legitimately walk on water? Christians cannot explain this.

Yeah, it's all bullshit.

The Chapter ends with sick people being made well by merely touching Jesus's garments. So miracles extend even to the clothes you wear!

Yeah, bullshit.

logical bob wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:Yeah, anyway, in Chapter 11, Matthew reiterates how Jesus sent his posse out to teach in the cities, which never happened since someone would have recorded it at the time.

Because we have really comprehensive records of all the preaching that happened in 1st century Galilee.

Somebody isn't reading too carefully. If Jesus really performed all the miracles and had all these followers (later described as 5000), someone contemporary would have noticed. We have records about Appolonius of Tyre, Nero, and others that supposedly performed miracles. No contemporary accounts of Jesus. We actually would know this. No Roman historian, nor Josephus recorded this. No contemporary records of Rome recorded this. No contemporary Jewish records recorded this.

And they were very thorough.

In 11:10, Matthew copies Malachi 3:1, which is said to prophesize the coming of John the Baptist. Except that as usual, Matthew is a fuck-up. Malachi states that Elijah is to come back and John the Baptist stated he was not Elijah in the Gospel of John. Ooops.

Why is the author of Matthew a douchebag because the author of John diasagrees with him?

Again, someone didn't read from the beginning. Matthew is a douchebag because he's a proven liar and exaggerator.

Furthermore, the entire Elijah thing is ridiculous in and of itself. Once again, Jesus is relying on Old Testament scripture.

Truly shocking behaviour for a Jew.

Actually, truly shocking behavior since Christians don't believe in the Old Testament fairly tales. Fundies do, but liberals try to say that the fairy tales don't matter. Except that Jesus believed in them...

Ooops.

Fail.

In 11:25, it is evident that part of the text is redacted since it has Jesus answering a non-existent question.

Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't read like there has to be a question. Jesus is preaching and he says some stuff.

Evidently, it's just you. The text specifically says that Jesus ANSWERED.

Except...corn as Americans know it is a Native American vegetable. When Europeans and ancient peoples talk about corn, they are likely talking about wheat. I doubt you can eat wheat from the stalk. Now, it's also possible that Matthew is talking about barley or oats, which would make the verse more valid, but I daresay most American Christians think they are peeling off leaves and eating maize.

I get the fact that you don't rate the author, but do you really think he was so thick that he'd describe his characters snacking on something completely inedible? If you think he's describing an indelible plant then there's a fair chance the mistake is yours. In any case, it has to be stuff you make bread from or the comparison with sacred bread wouldn't work.

No, I think American Christians think this and I made that point quite clear.

Except that Jesus is actually referencing 1 Samuel 21:1-6, where David enters the temple ALONE. Not with people. ALONE.

Yes, he goes into the temple alone and gets bread for his companions. And Jesus allows his companions to eat the wheat (or whatever it is) here. It's not hard.

Actually, it is. David goes in alone and Jesus states that he went in with his companions.

It's likely Matthew hasn't a clue that this refers to 1 Samuel since he likely copied it from Mark 2:25-26.

It's not exactly breaking news that Matthew copies from Mark.

It's not? Really, how about when he fucks it up?

I note you conveniently left that part out.

Difficulty: not only did Mark fuck up who went into the temple, he also fucked up the name of the high priest, which was Ahimelech, not Abiathar.

What Mark says is "In the days of Abiathar the High Priest, he entered the house of God..." Abiathar was clearly around at the time as he enters the story two chapters later. He's then a major character in his capacity as High Priest. If this is an error it's no more severe than describing the time just before Lincoln's inauguration as "in the days of President Lincoln."

Well, that's a happy lie. Mark says Abiathar. So does Matthew. Except that when you read 1 Samuel, the priest isn't Abiathar, but Ahimelech.

You lose.

So after arguing with the Pharisees, Jesus goes out and heals many people (which he didn't since someone would have noticed), pissing the Pharisees off further. In 12:22, Jesus once again casts out a demon. Remember, Christians, demons exist!

Are you going to point and laugh at each individual supernatural claim? It's going to long thread...

Oh, sorry, do you believe in demons?

If so, can you tell us specifically your evidence for them and what they are, and if not, can you tell us specifically why you reject the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Dude, there are many, many good criticisms of the Bible (and you have stumbled on a couple) but honestly, this is pretty lame. It doesn't reflect well.

I'll try to summon up enough willpower to care about your obviously uninformed opinion.

NineOneFour wrote:Somebody isn't reading too carefully. If Jesus really performed all the miracles and had all these followers (later described as 5000), someone contemporary would have noticed. We have records about Appolonius of Tyre, Nero, and others that supposedly performed miracles. No contemporary accounts of Jesus. We actually would know this. No Roman historian, nor Josephus recorded this. No contemporary records of Rome recorded this. No contemporary Jewish records recorded this. And they were very thorough.

You didn't say the miracles went unrecorded. You said it was the disciples preaching in the cities. If the records are so thorough perhaps you could tell us who you think was preaching in Galilee at the time. Or were they all atheists?

Unless you believe that Nero and Apollonius really did perform miracles then what we have is unreliable miracle stories about them. And we also have unreliable miracle stories about Jesus. They're called the gospels.

Actually, truly shocking behavior since Christians don't believe in the Old Testament fairly tales. Fundies do, but liberals try to say that the fairy tales don't matter. Except that Jesus believed in them...

Ooops.

Fail.

You say that Christian's don't believe them but some Christians do? OK.

No, I think American Christians think this and I made that point quite clear.

OK, but the ignorance of modern American Christians is hardly a criticism of the Gospel.

Actually, it is. David goes in alone and Jesus states that he went in with his companions.

Jesus doesn't state anything about going in. He breaks religious law to feed his companions and identifies a story in which David does the same. It's completely irrelevant that he was in the field at the same time as his companions whereas David left them outside the Temple.

]It's not exactly breaking news that Matthew copies from Mark.

It's not? Really, how about when he fucks it up?

Sometimes Matthew made changes to Mark's material. He presumably thought Mark was wrong at those points.

Well, that's a happy lie. Mark says Abiathar. So does Matthew. Except that when you read 1 Samuel, the priest isn't Abiathar, but Ahimelech.

Can you show me where Matthew says Abiathar?

Oh, sorry, do you believe in demons?

No of course I don't believe in demons. I was just wondering why it's helpful to take books nearly 2000 years old and point and laugh at the places where they claim supernatural things. What will you be moving on to next? Or is it just the Bible?

I'll try to summon up enough willpower to care about your obviously uninformed opinion.

Don't trouble yourself, I'll leave you to get on with it. It would actually be quite a worthwhile exercise if you put a little thought into it and picked up on the major problems rather than making a massive deal out of exaggerated small issues.

Obviously it's absurd to believe that every word of the Gospels is the literal truth. Your criticism is of those people who believe that. To understand what the Bible is you need to understand it in the context of its time rather than struggling to find every opportunity to score points off it. It would be strange indeed if anyone in the ancient world had written a book that was totally in line with modern thinking. The douchebag isn't the author, though we have nothing in common with him, but the people who believe it without understanding it.

logical bob wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:Somebody isn't reading too carefully. If Jesus really performed all the miracles and had all these followers (later described as 5000), someone contemporary would have noticed. We have records about Appolonius of Tyre, Nero, and others that supposedly performed miracles. No contemporary accounts of Jesus. We actually would know this. No Roman historian, nor Josephus recorded this. No contemporary records of Rome recorded this. No contemporary Jewish records recorded this. And they were very thorough.

You didn't say the miracles went unrecorded. You said it was the disciples preaching in the cities. If the records are so thorough perhaps you could tell us who you think was preaching in Galilee at the time. Or were they all atheists?

Unless you believe that Nero and Apollonius really did perform miracles then what we have is unreliable miracle stories about them. And we also have unreliable miracle stories about Jesus. They're called the gospels.

Did you miss the term "contemporary" I used earlier? Or the phrase "at the time"?

Seriously, man, what the fuck?

Actually, truly shocking behavior since Christians don't believe in the Old Testament fairly tales. Fundies do, but liberals try to say that the fairy tales don't matter. Except that Jesus believed in them...

Ooops.

Fail.

You say that Christian's don't believe them but some Christians do? OK.

And you fail yet again. Try reading again, maybe from the beginning instead of attacking Chapter 11, FFS.

No, I think American Christians think this and I made that point quite clear.

OK, but the ignorance of modern American Christians is hardly a criticism of the Gospel.

Please point out where I said it was.

Actually, it is. David goes in alone and Jesus states that he went in with his companions.

Jesus doesn't state anything about going in. He breaks religious law to feed his companions and identifies a story in which David does the same. It's completely irrelevant that he was in the field at the same time as his companions whereas David left them outside the Temple.

Eh, it's possible, but unlikely. The text specifically states "and they that were with him" when referring to David entering the temple.

It seems like special pleading to me.

]It's not exactly breaking news that Matthew copies from Mark.

It's not? Really, how about when he fucks it up?

Sometimes Matthew made changes to Mark's material. He presumably thought Mark was wrong at those points.

And sometimes he misinterprets it.

Well, that's a happy lie. Mark says Abiathar. So does Matthew. Except that when you read 1 Samuel, the priest isn't Abiathar, but Ahimelech.

Can you show me where Matthew says Abiathar?

Ok, Matthew doesn't say Abiathar. So fucking what? Mark screwed it up and Matthew copied from Mark. QED. WHICH IS WHAT I SAID ORIGINALLY.

Oh, wow, man, you must be really proud to chance upon a mistake on my part when replying to you, a mistake that I didn't make in the original post.

Pedantic, much?

Oh, sorry, do you believe in demons?

No of course I don't believe in demons. I was just wondering why it's helpful to take books nearly 2000 years old and point and laugh at the places where they claim supernatural things. What will you be moving on to next? Or is it just the Bible?

Fail.

You cannot be this obtuse. I'm certain of it.

I'll try to summon up enough willpower to care about your obviously uninformed opinion.

Don't trouble yourself, I'll leave you to get on with it. It would actually be quite a worthwhile exercise if you put a little thought into it and picked up on the major problems rather than making a massive deal out of exaggerated small issues.

You know what would be worthwhile? You actually reading what I write instead of coming in on Chapter 11 and misinterpreting half of my posts.

Obviously it's absurd to believe that every word of the Gospels is the literal truth. Your criticism is of those people who believe that. To understand what the Bible is you need to understand it in the context of its time rather than struggling to find every opportunity to score points off it. It would be strange indeed if anyone in the ancient world had written a book that was totally in line with modern thinking. The douchebag isn't the author, though we have nothing in common with him, but the people who believe it without understanding it.

Oh, I am sorry, I thought the Bible was the Word of God and therefore should be error-free. Please explain how it should contain errors, and if it does, how you can know what ISN'T an error.

Have to go to bed and I'll deal with Chapters 15 and 16 shortly, despite the rantings and mewlings of the peanut gallery.

NineOneFour wrote:Oh, I am sorry, I thought the Bible was the Word of God and therefore should be error-free. Please explain how it should contain errors, and if it does, how you can know what ISN'T an error.

Does Matthew's gospel claim to be the inerrant word of God? If so, where? If not then your beef is with those people who for some reason have decided that it is rather than with the gospel itself.

I have no desire to do any more "ranting and mewling" so I'll leave it at that. Enjoy.

NineOneFour wrote:
Actually, truly shocking behavior since Christians don't believe in the Old Testament fairly tales. Fundies do, but liberals try to say that the fairy tales don't matter. Except that Jesus believed in them...

Ooops.

Fail.

This is kind of an interesting thing, because you're taking Matthew to task for reporting that Jesus said something ...


In a courtroom, if a witness were to say 'Sect Leader So-and-so told, in front of an audience, that demons exist', would you question the credibility of the fucking witness on that count?

K, I agree Matthew did lie and was easily duped into believing stupid things, but let's hold it a moment.

(In this particular criticism, you're not criticizingMatthew, you're questioning the sense in what the main actor _within_ the text he wrote is saying ... which is one step removed from the target who you're purporting to show us what an asshole he is*!)

* man, the relative clause there is weird; sorry for the pseudo-Yinglish resumptive pronoun. No, not really sorry. In fact, the awkwardness of the structure of this post is a result of me first writing a rather awkward post, with the resumptive-pronoun-requiring structure in it, then editing it, then realizing I'm too fond of resumptive pronouns to have it removed. So it stays. Fuck yeah.

logical bob wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:Oh, I am sorry, I thought the Bible was the Word of God and therefore should be error-free. Please explain how it should contain errors, and if it does, how you can know what ISN'T an error.

Does Matthew's gospel claim to be the inerrant word of God? If so, where? If not then your beef is with those people who for some reason have decided that it is rather than with the gospel itself.

When you're able to acknowledge I've proven the author of Matthew is an out-and-out liar and have bothered to actually read my posts from the beginning of this thread, maybe we can have an intelligent conversation.

I have no desire to do any more "ranting and mewling" so I'll leave it at that. Enjoy.

Too bad, I would have enjoyed an intelligent conversation with you.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:
Actually, truly shocking behavior since Christians don't believe in the Old Testament fairly tales. Fundies do, but liberals try to say that the fairy tales don't matter. Except that Jesus believed in them...

Ooops.

Fail.

This is kind of an interesting thing, because you're taking Matthew to task for reporting that Jesus said something ...


In a courtroom, if a witness were to say 'Sect Leader So-and-so told, in front of an audience, that demons exist', would you question the credibility of the fucking witness on that count?

K, I agree Matthew did lie and was easily duped into believing stupid things, but let's hold it a moment.

(In this particular criticism, you're not criticizingMatthew, you're questioning the sense in what the main actor _within_ the text he wrote is saying ... which is one step removed from the target who you're purporting to show us what an asshole he is*!)

* man, the relative clause there is weird; sorry for the pseudo-Yinglish resumptive pronoun. No, not really sorry. In fact, the awkwardness of the structure of this post is a result of me first writing a rather awkward post, with the resumptive-pronoun-requiring structure in it, then editing it, then realizing I'm too fond of resumptive pronouns to have it removed. So it stays. Fuck yeah.

+1 for "Fuck yeah"

Well, here is the dilemma: either Matthew is lying and making shit up, which is quite possible, given his previously proven mendacity, or Jesus is an idiot/liar/etc. and Matthew is reporting correctly.

To me, it doesn't matter.

This is why: if Matthew is a liar, then the entire Gospel is suspect and Christians need to acknowledge that and stop referencing ANY of it as if it was truth and forming their lives and beliefs around anything in it.

On the other hand, if Matthew reports correctly when he talks about Jesus, then Jesus is frequently wrong, nuts, stupid, or just plain weird, which pretty much invalidates the idea that he is in any way divine, or anything more than just another human being. Which would invalidate Christianity itself.

This is why it's a problem for Christians. They're fucked either way.

Make sense?

NineOneFour wrote:When you're able to acknowledge I've proven the author of Matthew is an out-and-out liar and have bothered to actually read my posts from the beginning of this thread, maybe we can have an intelligent conversation.

I have read the thread from the beginning. It seemed more sensible to comment on the most recent post when I decided to respond rather than hauling you right back to page one. Whichever chapter I'd joined in on, my comments would have been essentially the same. I also agreed very much with what spin said back at the start (which was certainly a novel experience for me).

Matthew describes a lot of events which didn't literally happen and it seems pretty certain that the author didn't think that they had literally happened. I prefer to avoid black and white labels but if you must go with "out-and-out liar" then fair enough.

Too bad, I would have enjoyed an intelligent conversation with you.

Well, let's leave the sniping at the details of your commentary. I'm pointing out that Matthew doesn't claim to be the inerrant word of God. Personally, I'd rather try to understand what is going on rather than heap abuse on the author, especially since I suspect we both agree that the people who really have it wrong are the ones who think for some reason that it is inerrant.

I'm going to try and get through Chapter 15 here before work, so bear with me.

Chapter 15 is the showdown between Jesus and the Pharisees, who take him to task because he allows his followers to break the Sabbath laws and not washing his hands before eating. Jesus tells them they are hypocrites since they haven't stoned their disobedient children to death as is required not only in Exodus, which Matthew quotes, but also Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Fair point here. +1 Jesus.

You'll notice though that modern liberal theologians are basically Christian Pharisees. They pick and choose which laws and verses they want to follow.

Oops.

Then Matthew continues his obsession with the Book of Isaiah, quoting Isaiah 29 in verse 15:7-9. However, Matthew has the same problem later and contemporary Christians have: taking shit out of context. Isaiah 29 is about damning the city of Ariel (or Jerusalem) and has nothing to do with the Pharisees.

So the Pharisees are hacked off and Jesus says they are the blind leading the blind. Simon Peter doesn't get it in 15:15 and Jesus asks him if he's fucking retarded or what. Jesus's point here is that God judges you on what you say.

Which is another problem for Christians. In other places, God judges one on one's thoughts and/or deeds. Now we hear that God judges us on what we say. It's all very stupid and silly unless God judges one on one's thoughts, deeds, AND sayings. Which means that every Christian is damned since all of them have said blasphemous things at one point or another. Of course, they have manufactured the Belief in Christ = Get Out of Jail Free Card.

In 15:21, Jesus visits Tyre, which is a good trick since according to Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to destroy it utterly. Which brings into question if Ezekiel should be included in the Bible since his prophecies are crap, but more on that later.

In 15:22-26 we learn Jesus is a closet racist. He tells a Canaanite woman who wants her daughter healed to fuck off because and solely because she is Canaanite and says the gospel should only be preached to Jews. This is contradicted in other gospels, but also in Chapter 28 of Matthew. Jesus relents when the woman has a snappy comeback and heals the kid, then he goes and sits on a mountain to do a Buddha impersonation.

And the multitude of 5000 some odd are following him around during all of this, making the whole thing impossible and asinine.

Well, even more so.

So anyway, they have these 5000 people that need to be fed and the disciples, who fucking have to be high or retarded at this point, are worried how these people are going to be fed, conveniently forgetting Chapter 14 where Jesus creates bread and fish for all of them. So he does this again.

At the end of the Chapter we learn that the 5000 have become 4000, so either he's lost 1000 followers or he let 1/5 starve to death.

The miracles, by the way, are very moronic, and no less a personage than Thomas Jefferson created a Bible that was sans miracles. I pointed out before that it is not just Jesus who can do miracles but so can his followers and his clothing. Which make the stupidity of the disciples pretty obvious here. It's clear, I think, to an objective observer, that Matthew was desperately trying to paint Jesus as this divine miracle worker and teacher of parables but to do that you have to make his sidekicks functionally retarded.

I think it is fairly conclusive that Jesus didn't actually perform any miracles any more than Apollonius Christ or Nero did. So when it comes time to see what is left of Matthew's Gospel after all the contradictions and stupidity is taken out, the miracles are going to have to go as well.

logical bob wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:When you're able to acknowledge I've proven the author of Matthew is an out-and-out liar and have bothered to actually read my posts from the beginning of this thread, maybe we can have an intelligent conversation.

I have read the thread from the beginning. It seemed more sensible to comment on the most recent post when I decided to respond rather than hauling you right back to page one. Whichever chapter I'd joined in on, my comments would have been essentially the same. I also agreed very much with what spin said back at the start (which was certainly a novel experience for me).

Matthew describes a lot of events which didn't literally happen and it seems pretty certain that the author didn't think that they had literally happened. I prefer to avoid black and white labels but if you must go with "out-and-out liar" then fair enough.

Too bad, I would have enjoyed an intelligent conversation with you.

Well, let's leave the sniping at the details of your commentary. I'm pointing out that Matthew doesn't claim to be the inerrant word of God. Personally, I'd rather try to understand what is going on rather than heap abuse on the author, especially since I suspect we both agree that the people who really have it wrong are the ones who think for some reason that it is inerrant.

I'm as comfortable heaping abuse on Matthew as I would be on any other intolerant and irrational religious nutcase, be it Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Osama bin Ladin, Ignatius of Loyola, Martin Luther, etc. Why the gospel writers should be given respect is beyond me. If anyone wrote the stuff they put to paper today, it would be labeled as hate speech of the blitheringly insane, and rightly so.

NineOneFour wrote:Why the gospel writers should be given respect is beyond me. If anyone wrote the stuff they put to paper today, it would be labeled as hate speech of the blitheringly insane, and rightly so.

The operative word is today. Reading the Bible as if it was written today is just anachronism.

One of the things that I've always admired about the translators, over time, is that they haven't tried to make the stories believable by adding prophecies about future events that they know have happened, like my joke about why Satan didn't tempt Jesus with a BigMac. Especially knowing that they didn't really care too much about old books, we know all the stories of various dictators burning old books, you have to hand it to them that they didn't try to put the 11th century version of a "Big Mac" into a prophecy somewhere. Just a sidetrack, something I've always thought about.

You mean like the Renaissance paintings where everyone's wearing Renaissance clothes?

I agree - restraint on the part of the copyists and translators, but faking prophecy in the way you describe is exactly what the authors of Daniel and Mark were doing.

Agrippina wrote:One of the things that I've always admired about the translators, over time, is that they haven't tried to make the stories believable by adding prophecies about future events that they know have happened, like my joke about why Satan didn't tempt Jesus with a BigMac. Especially knowing that they didn't really care too much about old books, we know all the stories of various dictators burning old books, you have to hand it to them that they didn't try to put the 11th century version of a "Big Mac" into a prophecy somewhere. Just a sidetrack, something I've always thought about.

I think they did try to make the stories more believable by adding the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. We know that it had already happened by the time the stories were written but most Christians believe the gospels were written before the Roman/Jewish war and Mark 13, Matt. 24 and Luke 21 are real prophecies made by Jesus himself.

Since Jesus didn't return as per those prophecies, people say that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD was only the "typical" fulfillment and are still waiting for the "anti-typical" fulfillment to happen sometime in the future - mostly after the Jews rebuild the temple, of course. Yes. It is Christians who came up with the idea that prophecy has dual fulfillments. But, just in case, they came up with a whole book of vague, ambiguous prophecies to keep people off balance - the book of Revelation. They probably figured that would keep Christians looking for Jesus' return for thousands of years....worked too, didn't it?

Unfortunately, I don't trust my emotions tonight. I'll return to Matthew in a few.