Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1 - Prophecies, Promises, and Misquotes - All - The Skeptic's Annotated Bible Discussion Board - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Franciscan Monkey	Re: Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 172 01/10/06 21:33:40	The target audience of the gospel writers was not the educated Jewish religious leaders, but the common man. Most of these people would not have been well-versed in the OT, and wouldn't have been able to cross-reference the passages easily. Notice that Matthew, by far the biggest offender of the writers in terms of falsely connecting supposed events in Jesus' life to prophecy, at times omitted where the original passage was found, or even attributed the prophecy to another OT prophet. Perhaps this was due to him being slipshod in his work, or perhaps he was willfully misleading his target audience to cover his tracks. Even today, Christian preachers, teachers, and authors are proclaiming that Jesus fulfilled specific predictive prophecies even though the "flock" should know that that is not the case. Proof that it could have worked 2000 years ago is the fact that it actually is still working today. Respectfully, Franciscan Monkey
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Rev Etherman	Re: Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 401 01/15/06 12:33:35	`The target audience of the gospel writers was not the educated Jewish religious leaders, but the common man. Most of these people would not have been well-versed in the OT, and wouldn't have been able to cross-reference the passages easily.` It would have been easy enough to ask a Rabbi. *Quote:* Even today, Christian preachers, teachers, and authors are proclaiming that Jesus fulfilled specific predictive prophecies even though the "flock" should know that that is not the case. Proof that it could have worked 2000 years ago is the fact that it actually is still working today. There's an important difference. Most Christians are Christians because they were brought up that way. It's not likely that they would seriously question their beliefs. By the same token, 2000 years ago most Jews were Jews because they were brought up that way. They'd also have the inclination not to question their beliefs. Thus it would be difficult to convert them to Christianity. And we see this historically. Christianity never made great inroads into Judaism. Christianity has only been successful amonst Gentiles, who, of course, had no attachment to the OT. Still, even if Spong has overstated his case, there are still some pretty clear midrashic elements in the Gospels. Jesus as the Passover sacrifice is a good one. If God wanted us to be Atheists we'd be born that way.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Diskeyezed	Re: Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 851 01/16/06 07:17:08	I've also read some things claiming that the Gospels may have originally been composed as midrash. There are good points in favor of as well as in opposition to that view (as has been noted in this thread). My position is this: If the Gospels were originally intended as actual history, then the fact is that the authors took OT passages out of context to fabricate prophetic fulfillments, and Waterrock's arguments don't hold up, since the term used is "fulfilled." On the other hand, if they were midrash, then the authors wouldn't have meant "fulfilled" literally, but being midrash renders them non-history. Either way, the Gospels are rendered false. "As for the truth, it seems like we just pick a theory." -- Emily Saliers of Indigo Girls
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Rev Etherman	Re: Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 401 01/17/06 20:32:34	*Quote:* Either way, the Gospels are rendered false. I agree, though I still think there might be some grains of truth in there. If God wanted us to be Atheists we'd be born that way.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Diskeyezed	Re: Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 851 01/18/06 15:09:43	*Quote:* I still think there might be some grains of truth in there. Comparable to the grains of truth in tabloids? "As for the truth, it seems like we just pick a theory." -- Emily Saliers of Indigo Girls
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Franciscan Monkey	Matthew's intended audience	#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 172 01/18/06 16:06:35	*Quote:* There's an important difference. Most Christians are Christians because they were brought up that way. It's not likely that they would seriously question their beliefs. By the same token, 2000 years ago most Jews were Jews because they were brought up that way. They'd also have the inclination not to question their beliefs. Thus it would be difficult to convert them to Christianity. And we see this historically. Christianity never made great inroads into Judaism. Christianity has only been successful amonst Gentiles, who, of course, had no attachment to the OT. Matthew's intended audience appears to have been two groups: Gentile Christians, and Nazarenes, Jewish followers of Christ. The Nazarenes believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and had been expelled from the synagogues by the Pharisees in A.D. 90. They were already Christians. They would have had a vested interest in linking Jesus with Messianic prophecies that proved he was the Messiah. Matthew was not written, at least not primarily, to convince Jews to convert to Christianity. That being said, there are many groups that mainstream Christianity considers cults. These cults get most of their followers from among the Christian ranks, people who, according to you, would have had little inclination to question their beliefs, having been raised that way. Yet they go against there own teachings to embrace these new religions. *Quote:* Still, even if Spong has overstated his case, there are still some pretty clear midrashic elements in the Gospels. Jesus as the Passover sacrifice is a good one. I agree that Jesus was presented as a picture of the Passover lamb. However, that does not mean that he wasn't being presented historically. A midrash expounds upon an OT passage, and in a style, at least as far as I've seen, quite dissimilar to the Gospel narratives. Yes, both allude to the OT, but in different ways. Respectfully, Franciscan Monkey
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Franciscan Monkey	BTW...	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 172 01/18/06 16:12:52	You have piqued my interest enough that I will probably buy one of Spong's books on the subject on my next run to Books-a-Million. Maybe then I will have some idea what I'm talking about! Respectfully, Franciscan Monkey
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Replies

Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	08/08/05 23:58:37	Waterrock
Re: Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	10/27/05 05:18:14	Franciscan Monkey
Re: Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	01/07/06 13:57:07	Rev Etherman
Re: Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	01/09/06 08:42:51	Franciscan Monkey
Re: Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	01/09/06 23:13:16	Rev Etherman
Re: Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	01/10/06 21:33:40	Franciscan Monkey
Re: Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	01/15/06 12:33:35	Rev Etherman
Re: Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	01/16/06 07:17:08	Diskeyezed
Re: Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	01/17/06 20:32:34	Rev Etherman
Re: Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	01/18/06 15:09:43	Diskeyezed
Matthew's intended audience	01/18/06 16:06:35	Franciscan Monkey
BTW...	01/18/06 16:12:52	Franciscan Monkey
Re: Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1	01/18/06 15:18:43	Diskeyezed
I agree 100% that that is a possibility.	01/18/06 16:08:45	Franciscan Monkey