Christianity Pt 1
Being founded on Judaism, which has already been shown to be a false religion we could easily just dismiss this as false as well. All the arguments against Judaism effect aspects which are part of the Christian religions as well.
However, in the spirit of giving the benefit of the doubt, this will focus on those beliefs specific to Christianity. This covers Evangelical, Catholic, Christian and Jehovah's Witnesses as defined earlier.
Matthew 1:18-19
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
-This first chapter implies Jesus is of the line of David. It lays out the lineage from David to Joseph. It also make clear the child is not Joseph's but Mary's by way of God...Therefore Jesus is NOT of the line of David (He does not share that blood) as that would have to come down through his mother's line. According to all human tradition you are only of a lineage descended through your human parents, therefore even if God is all powerful he cannot make the child of the line of David except through a descendant of the line of David (ie Joseph).
-Assuming the child was born without male intervention, then genetically it would have required the child to be a female as his mother could provide no Y chromosome. We will assume God intervened in this one and let it go however (but see the note on rule two, all powerful God creating internal consistency problems) We'll also accept the virgin birth as allowable by God's intervention
Matthew 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
- he shall save HIS people... taking this literally it could mean nothing other then Jews. From the old testament tradition (and all other human traditions) a person's "people" were his kin and extended from that the group or nation he belonged to and identified with. Later verses clearly show this to be the Jews. Therefore Jesus is out to save the Jews (which is where he begins in any case) and according to the literal word of God (this is God speaking in this verse) only the Jews and noone else's salvation is mentioned. (note that a literal understanding says Joseph knew not his wife UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus...implying he did "know" her after)
Matthew 2:16
Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.
-My problems with this are historical. Herod's reign was fairly well documented by the historian Josephus who described many of Herod's atrocities, but this one is never mentioned. Nor is there any historical evidence (ie mass graves/scattered graves of murdered children) to suggest a large number of children were killed. This also seems less likely when considering it is a re-creation of Moses' birth and the slaughter of the Jewish children to prevent his rising to lead the Jewish people from Egypt. All evidence points to this being theological fiction with the intention of "fulfilling" an old testament prophecy(Jer31:15) that never came true.
Josephus is known to have despised Herod, and took pleasure in noting every atrocity attributed to him. He would certainly not have let such a one as murdering children go unnoted. This implies the story was written after Josephus' time and this "crime" was not known by anyone until after Herod's time. This seems odd as it would be easier to discover and document then Herod's murder of his own family members.
Thus the lack of any mention by Josephus and the complete lack of even the suggestion of such an event by any other source (Greek, Roman or Jewish) forces a simple conclusion: This never happened.
Since one prophecy regarding the "Messiah" is false it leads one to wonder about the others supposedly (and so conveniently) fulfilled by Jesus.
With this many discrepancies in just the first two chapters of the first book of the new testament I hardly need to go on...
Feel free to argue.
However, in the spirit of giving the benefit of the doubt, this will focus on those beliefs specific to Christianity. This covers Evangelical, Catholic, Christian and Jehovah's Witnesses as defined earlier.
Matthew 1:18-19
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
-This first chapter implies Jesus is of the line of David. It lays out the lineage from David to Joseph. It also make clear the child is not Joseph's but Mary's by way of God...Therefore Jesus is NOT of the line of David (He does not share that blood) as that would have to come down through his mother's line. According to all human tradition you are only of a lineage descended through your human parents, therefore even if God is all powerful he cannot make the child of the line of David except through a descendant of the line of David (ie Joseph).
-Assuming the child was born without male intervention, then genetically it would have required the child to be a female as his mother could provide no Y chromosome. We will assume God intervened in this one and let it go however (but see the note on rule two, all powerful God creating internal consistency problems) We'll also accept the virgin birth as allowable by God's intervention
Matthew 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
- he shall save HIS people... taking this literally it could mean nothing other then Jews. From the old testament tradition (and all other human traditions) a person's "people" were his kin and extended from that the group or nation he belonged to and identified with. Later verses clearly show this to be the Jews. Therefore Jesus is out to save the Jews (which is where he begins in any case) and according to the literal word of God (this is God speaking in this verse) only the Jews and noone else's salvation is mentioned. (note that a literal understanding says Joseph knew not his wife UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus...implying he did "know" her after)
Matthew 2:16
Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.
-My problems with this are historical. Herod's reign was fairly well documented by the historian Josephus who described many of Herod's atrocities, but this one is never mentioned. Nor is there any historical evidence (ie mass graves/scattered graves of murdered children) to suggest a large number of children were killed. This also seems less likely when considering it is a re-creation of Moses' birth and the slaughter of the Jewish children to prevent his rising to lead the Jewish people from Egypt. All evidence points to this being theological fiction with the intention of "fulfilling" an old testament prophecy(Jer31:15) that never came true.
Josephus is known to have despised Herod, and took pleasure in noting every atrocity attributed to him. He would certainly not have let such a one as murdering children go unnoted. This implies the story was written after Josephus' time and this "crime" was not known by anyone until after Herod's time. This seems odd as it would be easier to discover and document then Herod's murder of his own family members.
Thus the lack of any mention by Josephus and the complete lack of even the suggestion of such an event by any other source (Greek, Roman or Jewish) forces a simple conclusion: This never happened.
Since one prophecy regarding the "Messiah" is false it leads one to wonder about the others supposedly (and so conveniently) fulfilled by Jesus.
With this many discrepancies in just the first two chapters of the first book of the new testament I hardly need to go on...
Feel free to argue.
posted by cyber-mountain guru at 7:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home