(February 24, 2014 at 8:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: By the way, Dis, here's my post on why Matthew is a liar.
To avoid the problem of necro-posting if you wish to reply, I'll copy and paste my argument below, so you can defend Matthew from the charge of perjury, if you can.
Quote:"Reliable eye-witness testimony" is the phrase you often hear when Christians discuss the Gospel accounts. Matthew, assuming he did indeed write the book attributed to him, may be an eye-witness but he's anything but reliable. Were he under oath, his testimony would not only be thrown out but he'd be up on charges of perjury.
Matthew's target audience is clearly the Jews. He apparently took on the task of selling the idea that Jesus was the messiah despite the fact that, to the Jews, the Messiah was supposed to be a warlord that would lead Israel to ultimate victory over all her enemies. The meek and mild lamb of God was not what they had in mind. Matthew's solution was to claim various "fulfilled prophecies" of the OT. Some of these claims are bare assertions that can't be confirmed or denied (fulfilling prophecy is easily done when you write the story). Some of these are bald faced lies (I won't mince words here, the author of Matthew is a LIAR), easily determined when you cross reference the OT.
No wonder the Jews didn't buy it and still don't to this day.
Some of these lies include:
Quote:
1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Much has been made of the "bethula-almah" debate. The work Isaiah used is more accurately translated to "young maiden". Christian apologists will dismiss this as nit-picking, since "maiden" implies "virgin" but since this maiden is pregnant, one would think Isaiah would have used the stronger word "virgin". But let's be generous and let all that go.
Isaiah 7:14, even if we grant that the young lady was supposed to be a virgin, was clearly not a prophecy of a future mother of the messiah but a young woman of Isaiah's time. Furthermore, the passage was discussing events of the day and reassurances to King Ahaz that his enemy Syria would not prevail (which, by the way, they did so Isaiah was a false prophet). It had nothing to do with the coming messiah.
Next lie:
Quote:
2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Actually, this wasn't a prophecy and the use of the word "son" here was in reference to the nation of Israel, regarding the Exodus.
Quote:
Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
Next lie:
Quote:
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.
2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
Actually, the passage in Jeremiah (Jer 31:15) was a reference to the Babylonian captivity, as the verses following (16-17) explicitly state.
As a supposed prophet inspired or directed by the Holy Spirit, Matthew knew or should have known better. I accuse him of being a liar and suggest his testimony is thereby clouded. Your honor, I move that his testimony be tossed out and stricken from the record.
SUSTAINED!!! Court is adjourned..
