The Bible and earlier Christians

[DeistPaladin]

Er, Matthew was an early Christian - much earlier than the examples you give - and he apparently did read the Bible that way.

My contention is that Matthew lied and hoped nobody would notice.

He lies almost compulsively through his Gospel tale, alleging "prophecies" that were supposedly "fulfilled" but when you read the OT to cross-check his assertions, they turn out to be bogus. At other times he misquotes the OT, alleging that it says things it doesn't say. He also spins tall tales that historians can't verify, from the massacre of the infants around Jerusalem under Herod the Great to the "Attack of the Zombie Saints" when Jesus dies on the cross.

I sympathize somewhat. Matthew had the unenviable task of trying to evangelize to the Jews and convince them that this hippy flower-child was really the long awaited Messiah. Part of the sale of this bill of goods needed to include the "promised kingdom" being in the sky, not on earth as expected.

It's a small wonder the Jews weren't convinced, as underscored by how the books of the NT were originally in Greek and Matthew obviously relied heavily on the Septuagint, the Greek translation of OT books. Their Messiah was a warlord that would lead Israel to glorious triumph over her enemies, not some wandering hippy preaching peace and love. And the notion of an "intercessor" was wholly blasphemous to their faith. The god they worshiped was an insecure, jealous megalomaniac who shared center stage with no one, let alone require an intercessor. Further, the intercessor demigod concept, while popular among pagans, requires a polytheistic pantheon, another blasphemous concept to the Jews.

A hard sell, indeed. No wonder he lied his ass off.

[ThomM]

The earliest Xtians did not actually Have a "bible"
Early xtians - could not afford to have a bible - nor was it likely that they could actually read the bible as well.

So - they only learned about the bible THROUGH the priests who interpreted it.
Before the bible - the "priests" were literally free to claim ANYTHING - since nothing was really written down that all could see.
So -of course - we see things like virgin birth - miracles - and even a crucifixion being "developed" - whatever was needed to get the people to get behind them. And if they needed a bigger story - all they had to do was make it up.

When the bible was developed - the Catholic Church essentially brought most of these "stories' together = and then VOTED on what they considered good enough to put into the bible. And to THIS DAY - there is not a thing in the bible that they did not put there - even if the protestants removed some things.

When you add this to the potential for errors on the basis of translation - which even today is a sticky subject - you get the nonsense we call the New Testament - added to the nonsense that already existed called the Tanakh - ie - Old Testament.

And even today - when you look at different translations - there are sentences that simply do not mean the same things in the bible.

The most often made error I see - is in the English version where the Christ says - that the Father and I are one. IN other countries - where this IDIOM is a part of the language - people see that it simply means in AGREEMENT. But for the English speaking idiots - they claim it proves the trinity.
I often wonder what these people think about Caesar saying that he was ONE with the Roman Senate!!!

[Jenny A]

My contention is that Matthew lied and hoped nobody would notice.

He lies almost compulsively through his Gospel tale, alleging "prophecies" that were supposedly "fulfilled" but when you read the OT to cross-check his assertions, they turn out to be bogus. At other times he misquotes the OT, alleging that it says things it doesn't say. He also spins tall tales that historians can't verify, from the massacre of the infants around Jerusalem under Herod the Great to the "Attack of the Zombie Saints" when Jesus dies on the cross.

I sympathize somewhat. Matthew had the unenviable task of trying to evangelize to the Jews and convince them that this hippy flower-child was really the long awaited Messiah. Part of the sale of this bill of goods needed to include the "promised kingdom" being in the sky, not on earth as expected. <snip>
A hard sell, indeed. No wonder he lied his ass off.

He did have an uphill road didn't he? But I'm not entirely sure he was lying about the OT as much as you suggest. I think he may have been working from memory and memory of a Greek translation of the OT at that. There are scholars who put the canonization of the Hebrew OT as late as the 2nd Century CE. In any case, he was wrong.

No doubt that someone made up Herod's baby slaughter and the visit of the Magi. Whether Mathew cribbed it or made it up out of whole cloth it's an invention.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

"Matthew" is a made up name which was attached to an anonymous book of bullshit.

"Facts." They are nasty things.

The main characters, especially in the New Testament, have easy to pronounce "English" names while all of the minor characters have more traditional Middle East names. The English guys were very thoughtful to have done that.