Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I've often had the impression that he only sees every seventh word, and his responses are based on that.
Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)
- Thread starter phelix
- Start date
- Status
I've often had the impression that he only sees every seventh word, and his responses are based on that.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Was the author of the Gospel of Matthew (hereafter simply referred to as "Matthew") an eyewitness to any of the events in the life of Jesus? Well, one thing he probably didn't witness was Jesus entering Jerusalem. Consider this passage from Matthew on the entry (Mt. 21:1 - 7):
And when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If any one says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord has need of them,' and he will send them immediately." This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying,
"tell the daughter of Zion,
Behold, your king is coming to you,
humble and mounted on an ass,
on the colt the foal of an ass."
The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them. They brought the ass and the colt, and put their garments on them and he sat thereon.
So, according to this passage, Jesus entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday riding on two beasts a once, like a circus stunt rider. To understand why Matthew did this, when Mark and Luke simply has Jesus ride into Jerusalem on one ass, we need first to look at the prophecy from Zechariah quoted above (first boldface section). The passage partially quoted above is Zech. 9:9:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Lo, your king comes to you;
triumphant and victorious is he
humble and riding on an ass,
on a colt the foal of an ass.
The passage above is in verse form and employs a west Semitic poetic convention, that of repeating something twice with slight variation. Since Zion is the temple mount in Jerusalem, the daughter of Zion and the daughter of Jerusalem are the same person. Likewise, the ass and the "colt the foal of an ass" are the same beast. While he probably understood that the daughter ofZion would be the same as the daughter of Jerusalem, Matthew, writing in Greek, would not have been aware of the Semitic poetic convention. Thus, being a stickler for fulfilling prophecies to the letter, he had jesus ride into Jerusalem on two beasts at the same time.
Fundamentalist apologist Gleason Archer, in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (1982 Grand Rapids: Zondervan Corporation) says (p. 334) that Jesus actually rode only on the colt, but that its mother was led ahead of it, so the colt would follow her. Archer also asserts, on the same page, that, while Mark and Luke were not likely eyewitnesses to the event, Matthew was. The problem with this explanation is that it directly contradicts what Matthew specifically says in verse 7 (second boldface area): "They brought the ass and the colt, and put their garments on them and he sat thereon."
So, Matthew's slavish devotion to the prophecy on Zech 9:9, compounded by his failure to understand another language's poetic conventions, demonstrates that his record of the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday was fiction, not an eyewitness account.
In any case, the whole Palm Sunday episode is probably fictional. Consider what we must believe to accept the episode as historical. We would have to believe that, in a land steeped in messianic prophecies, in which there had already been religio-political based revolts against their rule, the Romans would have sat idly by while Jesus entered the city welcomed by adoring crowds, who threw their garments and palm fronds in the path of his donkey, so it wouldn't have to tread on bare ground, an action universally part of kingship symbolism, the ancient equivalent of rolling out the re carpet. Further, we would have to believe that they did not make it their business to learn enough of the language and customs of their subjects to understand what mass demonstrations were about. Yet, in the palm Sunday entrance, Jesus is met by adoring crowds calling out to him, "Hosannah!" which means, "Oh save!" and was an entreaty directed either to God or his messiah.
And when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If any one says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord has need of them,' and he will send them immediately." This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying,
"tell the daughter of Zion,
Behold, your king is coming to you,
humble and mounted on an ass,
on the colt the foal of an ass."
The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them. They brought the ass and the colt, and put their garments on them and he sat thereon.
So, according to this passage, Jesus entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday riding on two beasts a once, like a circus stunt rider. To understand why Matthew did this, when Mark and Luke simply has Jesus ride into Jerusalem on one ass, we need first to look at the prophecy from Zechariah quoted above (first boldface section). The passage partially quoted above is Zech. 9:9:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Lo, your king comes to you;
triumphant and victorious is he
humble and riding on an ass,
on a colt the foal of an ass.
The passage above is in verse form and employs a west Semitic poetic convention, that of repeating something twice with slight variation. Since Zion is the temple mount in Jerusalem, the daughter of Zion and the daughter of Jerusalem are the same person. Likewise, the ass and the "colt the foal of an ass" are the same beast. While he probably understood that the daughter ofZion would be the same as the daughter of Jerusalem, Matthew, writing in Greek, would not have been aware of the Semitic poetic convention. Thus, being a stickler for fulfilling prophecies to the letter, he had jesus ride into Jerusalem on two beasts at the same time.
Fundamentalist apologist Gleason Archer, in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (1982 Grand Rapids: Zondervan Corporation) says (p. 334) that Jesus actually rode only on the colt, but that its mother was led ahead of it, so the colt would follow her. Archer also asserts, on the same page, that, while Mark and Luke were not likely eyewitnesses to the event, Matthew was. The problem with this explanation is that it directly contradicts what Matthew specifically says in verse 7 (second boldface area): "They brought the ass and the colt, and put their garments on them and he sat thereon."
So, Matthew's slavish devotion to the prophecy on Zech 9:9, compounded by his failure to understand another language's poetic conventions, demonstrates that his record of the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday was fiction, not an eyewitness account.
In any case, the whole Palm Sunday episode is probably fictional. Consider what we must believe to accept the episode as historical. We would have to believe that, in a land steeped in messianic prophecies, in which there had already been religio-political based revolts against their rule, the Romans would have sat idly by while Jesus entered the city welcomed by adoring crowds, who threw their garments and palm fronds in the path of his donkey, so it wouldn't have to tread on bare ground, an action universally part of kingship symbolism, the ancient equivalent of rolling out the re carpet. Further, we would have to believe that they did not make it their business to learn enough of the language and customs of their subjects to understand what mass demonstrations were about. Yet, in the palm Sunday entrance, Jesus is met by adoring crowds calling out to him, "Hosannah!" which means, "Oh save!" and was an entreaty directed either to God or his messiah.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Still unanswered:
DOC, Why did 20,000 people ignore the earthquake and zombie hordes?
DOC, Why did 20,000 people ignore the earthquake and zombie hordes?
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Okay, since DOC wouldn't oblige me by responding to my question as to whether he thought any of the gospel writers or Paul were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, I considered certain aspects of the Synoptic Gospels that I considered disqualified their authors as eyewitnesses. Luke states at the opening of his gospel the he wasn't an eyewitness, Mark makes a hash of not only Jewish law, but of the geography of the region, making it unlikely that he was an eyewitness. Matthew has Jesus ride into Jerusalem on two donkeys at the same time in order to make it fulfill his misunderstanding of Zech. 9:9. His testimony of the event wasn't a witness of any sort, throwing the rest of his "testimony" into doubt. Thus, I would say the Synoptic Gospels are disqualified as eyewitness accounts.
That leaves the Gospel of John. In Jn. 21:24 the author claims to be the "disciple Jesus loved":
This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
However, if the author of John was actually one of the 12 disciples and an eyewitness to the events in the life of Jesus, his testimony falsifies much of what the other gospels say:
1) While the Synoptic Gospels take great pains to have John the Baptist baptize Jesus, John just has Jesus pass by where John is baptizing and has John hail him as the Lamb of God (Jn. 1:35).
2) John places the event of Jesus scourging the money-changers out of the Temple early in the ministry of Jesus (Jn. 2:13 - 20), right after he turned water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana (Jn. 2:1 - 11). HOwever, in the Synoptic Gospels, the event occurs after his entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday and, as the disruption of a temple cash cow, is the proximate cause for the priests arresting him.
3) In John, at Gethsemane, prior to his arrest, Jesus experiences none of the doubt and agony in the garden prior to his arrest, as he does in the Synoptic Gospels.
4) In the Synoptic Gospels' Passion accounts Jesus is so weakened by his scourging that he cannot carry his cross all the way to Golgotha. John makes no mention of this.
5) In order to fulfill yet another prophecy in Zechariah, John adds the detail of the Roman soldier piercing Jesus' side with a lance, not found in any of the other Passion accounts (Jn. 19:31 - 37):
Since if was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for the sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water He who saw it has borne witness - his testimony is true and he knows that he tells the truth - that you also may believe. For these things took place that scripture might be fulfilled, "not a bone of him shall be broken." And again another scripture says, "They shall look upon him whom they have pierced."
While the Synoptic Gospels have the Last Supper as a Passover meal, John delays the day of preparation for Passover until the Crucifixion. This is because he has made Jesus the sacriciial paschal lamb Exodus 12:46 says of the Passover lamb:
In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry forth any of its flesh outside the house; and you shall not break a bone of it.
John treats this as a prophecy. Since the soldiers already see that Jesus is dead, there's not reason for them to spear him in the side. John only adds that detail to fulfill one more prophecy (Zech. 12:10):
An I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that when they look upon him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him as one weeps over a first-born.
Since the Roman soldiers are looking on the one whom they have pierced, they certainly are not weeping bitterly. Thus, John has misused Zech. 12:10 to try to force the Crucifixion to fulfill it. Again, as in Matthew making Jesus ride into Jerusalem on two donkeys at the same time, this narrative bent to "fulfill" prophecy is the stuff of manufactured narrative , rather than history.
That leaves the Gospel of John. In Jn. 21:24 the author claims to be the "disciple Jesus loved":
This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
However, if the author of John was actually one of the 12 disciples and an eyewitness to the events in the life of Jesus, his testimony falsifies much of what the other gospels say:
1) While the Synoptic Gospels take great pains to have John the Baptist baptize Jesus, John just has Jesus pass by where John is baptizing and has John hail him as the Lamb of God (Jn. 1:35).
2) John places the event of Jesus scourging the money-changers out of the Temple early in the ministry of Jesus (Jn. 2:13 - 20), right after he turned water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana (Jn. 2:1 - 11). HOwever, in the Synoptic Gospels, the event occurs after his entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday and, as the disruption of a temple cash cow, is the proximate cause for the priests arresting him.
3) In John, at Gethsemane, prior to his arrest, Jesus experiences none of the doubt and agony in the garden prior to his arrest, as he does in the Synoptic Gospels.
4) In the Synoptic Gospels' Passion accounts Jesus is so weakened by his scourging that he cannot carry his cross all the way to Golgotha. John makes no mention of this.
5) In order to fulfill yet another prophecy in Zechariah, John adds the detail of the Roman soldier piercing Jesus' side with a lance, not found in any of the other Passion accounts (Jn. 19:31 - 37):
Since if was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for the sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water He who saw it has borne witness - his testimony is true and he knows that he tells the truth - that you also may believe. For these things took place that scripture might be fulfilled, "not a bone of him shall be broken." And again another scripture says, "They shall look upon him whom they have pierced."
While the Synoptic Gospels have the Last Supper as a Passover meal, John delays the day of preparation for Passover until the Crucifixion. This is because he has made Jesus the sacriciial paschal lamb Exodus 12:46 says of the Passover lamb:
In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry forth any of its flesh outside the house; and you shall not break a bone of it.
John treats this as a prophecy. Since the soldiers already see that Jesus is dead, there's not reason for them to spear him in the side. John only adds that detail to fulfill one more prophecy (Zech. 12:10):
An I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that when they look upon him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him as one weeps over a first-born.
Since the Roman soldiers are looking on the one whom they have pierced, they certainly are not weeping bitterly. Thus, John has misused Zech. 12:10 to try to force the Crucifixion to fulfill it. Again, as in Matthew making Jesus ride into Jerusalem on two donkeys at the same time, this narrative bent to "fulfill" prophecy is the stuff of manufactured narrative , rather than history.
Last edited:
No he doesn't. I'll answer fully as time permits.
Let's just say I have about 2,200 posts in Part 1 and Part 2 of this thread. Thank you God for giving us the evidence that could allow me to do that.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
You are right - Luke does not state that he was not an eyewitness.
What he writes in Luke 1:1-4 is
that there were those who from the first were eyewitnesses
that their accounts were handed down
and he carefully investigated everything from the beginning.
So the questions become:
- If Luke was an eyewitness then why did he not write we who from the first were eyewitnesses.
- If Luke was an eyewitness then why did he not say so?
- If Luke was an eyewitness then why did he not write down his account?
- If Luke was an eyewitness then why is he relying on the handed down accounts of others?
- If Luke was an eyewitness then why did he need to investigate?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I've already brought in links in Part 1 giving evidence John and Matthew were authors. Maybe you didn't read the 500 page Part 1.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
DOC: How do you reconcile Mark's Resurrection, in which Jesus appears to nobody, leaving the empty tomb as the only evidence, with Paul's claim in 1 Cor. 15:6 that Jesus appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time?
Oh, BTW, if Jesus was alone in the Garden of Gethsemane when he asked God if this cup might pass from his lips (Mk. 14:36, Mt. 26:39, Lk. 22:42), who witnessed this?
Oh, BTW, if Jesus was alone in the Garden of Gethsemane when he asked God if this cup might pass from his lips (Mk. 14:36, Mt. 26:39, Lk. 22:42), who witnessed this?
DOC, the problem with that is, when people raise issues with you, you often fail to address them, and simply churn out more holy texts, praise of your god and so on. It is clear from the above discussion that Matthew wan not a witness to the events he describes. He is merely regurgitating "prophecies". The proof of this is that when he misunderstands the "prophetic" texts, or uses incorrect translations of them, he incorporates his misunderstandings into his story. Thus we get the two-donkey riding stunt; the "virgin" conception, and so forth.
That is the problem you must address, if you are to defend the literal truth of the gospel accounts. That problem, and of course the equally intractable problem of the huge number of discrepancies in their reports of the same events.
Last edited:
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Minor correction: not so much more holy texts and praise, but DOC recycles the same links and arguments over and over again.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Haha - I missed that one (then again I only have 7 posts in this thread so I don't have to read it very carefully
). Guess DOC missed the parts of the bible where Christ (allegedly) tells fictional stories/parables to get his point acrossddt
Mafia Penguin
Haha - I missed that one (then again I only have 7 posts in this thread so I don't have to read it very carefully
Another classic is where DOC defended whipping slaves. Is no worse than a mild sunburn.
- Status