Jump to content


Photo

Matthew-the Ultimate Problem For Christadelphians


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
346 replies to this topic

#1 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 04:20 AM

Matthew 8:31-The demons begged Jesus, "If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs." (Whole Chapter: Matthew 8 In context: Matthew 8:30-32)

Matthew 8:33-Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon­possessed men.
(Whole Chapter: Matthew 8 In context: Matthew 8:32-34)

Reading these versus almost makes one want to blush in embarassment at the lack of basic and fundmental understanding of the causes of disease. Now for christadelphians (this being a christadelphian forum). If we take a modern christadelphian and warp him back to this point in time in mathew we blatantly see

a) Jesus putting putting on a show
b) Jesus encouraging ignorance and misinformation through playing along with
people's incorrect beliefs about disease, he in fact told these people something to the effect that "He was asked to drive them out and send them into the herd of pigs."
c) Promoting ignorance (i.e. blatantly lying) is a sin.
d) Jesus (supposedly) had access to god's power so there can be no excuses that they wouldn't be able to understand or be immediately enlightened through divine intervention.

You get yourself into logical absurdities if you go down the path that jesus "really didn't lie" because one can not reconcile the christadelphian argument that demons are not spirits but manifestations of naturally caused sickness, when you read mathew 8 and read it as it was intended when it was printed.

So how is jesus sinless if he's blatantly lying? Jesus answered his critics with "it is written" and that settles it, using his same arguments vs. what modern christadelphians believe how is it possible to still believe the bible is inspired when Jesus is promoting and basically a con artist here and leaving the people in ignorance? I wouldn't call that a redeeming quality of a world leader or a representative of an infinitely wise, inerrant being, not to mention ITS A SIN. Which clearly violates the concept that jesus led a sinless life.

Edited by mordecai, 07 April 2004 - 05:21 AM.


#2 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 04:59 AM

Yeah, that's about it. :yep:

#3 Flappie

Flappie

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 7,644 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:11 AM

Yeah, that's about it. :yep:

:confused:
That sarcasm?
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#4 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:15 AM

I'm looking for a rational response, i.e. some sort of analyzation of the text. I may come off on the negative and the attack but it seems pretty obvious to me that Mathew needs some explaining.

#5 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:17 AM

I'm looking for a rational response, i.e. some sort of analyzation of the text. I may come off on the negative and the attack but it seems pretty obvious to me that Mathew needs some explaining.

What would you like explained? :book:

#6 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:17 AM

Yeah, that's about it.  :yep:

:confused:
That sarcasm?

I'm taking him mountaineering. :stereo:

#7 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:18 AM

Fortigurn,

I really need someone that can :fence: with. That was among one of the major pardoxical inconsistencies that totally spurned me off my christadelphian upbringing. No one I have met has been able to answer. You are a christadelphian so why not step up to the plate? Unless you agree and that comment you made really wasn't sarcasm (which I highly doubt).

#8 Amy Parkin

Amy Parkin

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,335 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:18 AM

If Jesus hadn't have kept them in the dark about what the 'demons' were, then everyone there would have been confused. They didn't know about all these diseases then. People would have thought He was a nutter.

#9 Flappie

Flappie

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 7,644 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:22 AM

Can we be certain that Christ knew about mental diseases?

This question was asked in :bag: mode, noone knows who asked it.
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#10 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:24 AM

Fortigurn,

I really need someone that can :fence: with. That was among one of the major pardoxical inconsistencies that totally spurned me off my christadelphian upbringing. No one I have met has been able to answer. You are a christadelphian so why not step up to the plate? Unless you agree and that comment you made really wasn't sarcasm (which I highly doubt).

I am, in fact, stepping up to the plate. What I need to know first and foremost is what your principal issues with the text are. Then we can talk. :bye:

#11 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:25 AM

If Jesus hadn't have kept them in the dark about what the 'demons' were, then everyone there would have been confused. They didn't know about all these diseases then. People would have thought He was a nutter.

All he had to do was tell them that sicknesses were caused by tiny little bugs so small you can't even see them. :eek:

The proof of this, he could point out, is that they've never been seen. :hadassah:

#12 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:27 AM

But thats just the point though Amy. Jesus claim to be the son of god and have access to gods power, you're saying he didn't have the power to convince them and he was the son of god, yet he could walk on water give gift of understanding different languages to people. Not withstanding he had the power of god.

You still didn't address the fact that it is still a lie regardless of what Mathew (and the others) were led by jesus to believe and inspired by god to convey things we know to be false. Lying is a sin, even if it is a lying by omition. You would agree that lying by omition is a sin?

Another problem: How is mark inspired/controlled by god if he writes beliefs which he holds, but are not true? So the slippery slope begins.

Edited by mordecai, 07 April 2004 - 05:34 AM.


#13 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:32 AM

But thats just the point though Amy. Jesus claim to be the son of god and have access to gods power, you're saying he didn't have the power to convince them and he was the son of god, yet he could walk on water give gift of understanding different languages to people. Not withstanding he had the power of god.

How would you have gone about convincing them, if you were Christ, as to the true reasons for these disorders?

And why would you do so? :coffee:

You still didn't address the fact that it is still a lie regardless of what Mathew (and the others) were led by jesus to believe and inspired by god to convey things we know to be false.  Lying is a sin, even if it is a lying by omition.  You would agree that lying by omition is a sin?


How is this a lie again? Walk me through it slowly.

Another problem: How is mark inspired/controlled by god if writes beliefs which he holds, but are not true?


Examples please. :book:

#14 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:33 AM

Fort,

The problem is you have to show me that how mathew 8 is written wasn't intended to be taken as literal truth. A rule of Dr. Thomas and many christadlephians was to take what is literal truth as literal truth unless there is good biblical evidence to believe otherwise.

But this still doesn't negate the fact that first century believers would still have believed in demons because of mathew conveys it directly through the text which modern christadelphians do not. I do not see a resolution to this problem forthcoming.

Also this does not address the problem that first century christians were heretical in their belief in demons when compared to their modern christadelphian counterparts.

Edited by mordecai, 07 April 2004 - 05:37 AM.


#15 Amy Parkin

Amy Parkin

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,335 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:34 AM

If Jesus hadn't have kept them in the dark about what the 'demons' were, then everyone there would have been confused.  They didn't know about all these diseases then.  People would have thought He was a nutter.

All he had to do was tell them that sicknesses were caused by tiny little bugs so small you can't even see them. :eek:

The proof of this, he could point out, is that they've never been seen. :hadassah:

But they wouldn't believe Him. If someone had have told me that, I would have thought they were crazy.

#16 Amy Parkin

Amy Parkin

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,335 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:35 AM

But thats just the point though Amy. Jesus claim to be the son of god and have access to gods power, you're saying he didn't have the power to convince them and he was the son of god, yet he could walk on water give gift of understanding different languages to people. Not withstanding he had the power of god.

You still didn't address the fact that it is still a lie regardless of what Mathew (and the others) were led by jesus to believe and inspired by god to convey things we know to be false. Lying is a sin, even if it is a lying by omition. You would agree that lying by omition is a sin?

Another problem: How is mark inspired/controlled by god if writes beliefs which he holds, but are not true? So the slippery slope begins.

But it wasn't a direct lie. He was explaining it in a way they would understand.

#17 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:35 AM

Fort,

The problem is you have to show me that how mathew 8 is written wasn't intended to be taken as literal truth. A rule of Dr. Thomas and many christadlephians was to take what is literal truth as literal truth unless there is good reason to believe otherwise.

Sure thing, I understand this. :yep:

But this still doesn't negate the fact that first century believers would still have believed in demons because of mathew conveys it directly through the text which modern christadelphians do not.  I do not see a resolution to this problem forthcoming.


What are demons? :book:

Also this does not address the problem that first century christians were heretical in their belief in demons when compared to their modern christadelphian counterparts.


Which first century Christians were these? :coffee:

#18 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:35 AM

If Jesus hadn't have kept them in the dark about what the 'demons' were, then everyone there would have been confused.  They didn't know about all these diseases then.  People would have thought He was a nutter.

All he had to do was tell them that sicknesses were caused by tiny little bugs so small you can't even see them. :eek:

The proof of this, he could point out, is that they've never been seen. :hadassah:

But they wouldn't believe Him. If someone had have told me that, I would have thought they were crazy.

Ya think? :stereo:

#19 Amy Parkin

Amy Parkin

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,335 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:39 AM

Some would, the most faithful ones but I don't think everyone would. Was that sarcasm...?

#20 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 07 April 2004 - 05:46 AM

Fort,

What are demons?


Thats the question I'm asking you, how do christadelphians biblically understand demons as is used in mathew 8 with regards to how they understand them in other passages when it clearly shows that mathew is talking about 'evil spirits' and how they are 'posessed' you certainly aren't 'possessed' by a disease and neither can they 'go into the pigs' and cause them to run down a hill into the water and die. I mean just think of the massive stretch in mathews credibility here that you or any other christadelphian has to try to understand and have it not conflict with what you understand elsewhere.


Which first century Christians were these?


Mathew at least and anyone that read mathew up until modern times, I mean you think the history of the apostasy is evidence enough that mathews readings led MANY people astray. You have the benefit of modern knowledge of disease the ancients didn't. To say first century believers did is nonsense and you know it, as Amy has already come in with the defense that "they wouldn't understand" so its ok to tell a lie if people wont accept it? That is contrary to living a sinless life.

It's patently obvious first century believers believed in all sorts of things like demons and spirits. Even Paul talks about consorting with a "witch" in the new testament IIRC. The the plain biblical text is the evidence you are looking for. I'll try to dig up some more passages as well. BBL.

Edited by mordecai, 07 April 2004 - 05:47 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)