More Christian questions - Story of Noah ending

[DangerousBeliefs]

I was just wondering this morning if someone (a Christian) could explain why Noah's flood stories for children always leave out this important lesson.

Genesis 9:20 And Noah began to be a husbandman, and planted a vineyard: 9:21 and he drank of the wine, and was drunken. And he was uncovered within his tent. 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father. And their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him. 9:25 And he said,

Cursed be Canaan;
A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Is it because it seems to contradict the lessons that Noah's flood is supposed to teach?

Is it because it seems to contradict this earlier statement?

Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, and perfect in his generations: Noah walked with God.

Are Christians being selective in their teachings to their children? Leaving out parts of the Bible because they believe these parts are contradictary?

Should you not be teaching children all parts of the story and not just those that suit the parable?

You are teaching them that it's a parable aren't you?


Bible Stories for Children

http://www.essex1.com/people/paul/Bible10.html

http://www.virtualchurch.org/noah.htm

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/noah.htm

http://www.jesusandkidz.com/Noah/Noah%20Page%201.htm

[farmermike]

My christian wife takes the position that just as we don't like the kids watching the late night news,maybe the bible stories should get glossed over also.to her the contradictions make the bible all the more believable,because if it were made up why would it contain sorid tales and verses that contradict one another

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by farmermike
to her the contradictions make the bible all the more believable,because if it were made up why would it contain sorid tales and verses that contradict one another Well, I guess that makes more sense than the various books being written by different authors over many different centuries, each with a different set of values and focuses.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
Are Christians being selective in their teachings to their children? Leaving out parts of the Bible because they believe these parts are contradictary?{/B]

Yes, yes they are. Christians view the Bible as and "Old Testament" and a "New Testament". Many Old Testament stories show the failings of humans, accompanied by there incomplete understanding of theology. With the life of Jesus, the understanding of theology improves and evolves. This is why most Christian parents focus on the New Testament when it comes to instruction, and use the Old Testament in a more mythological sense.

[B]Should you not be teaching children all parts of the story and not just those that suit the parable?

No, I think discernment is in order when it comes to pedagogy. You don't necessarily divulge the whole and entire truth to kids of a young age, anymore than if you were teaching a child science you would immediately come out with quantum mechanics, or the mechanics of sex.

-Elliot

[triadboy]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Many Old Testament stories show the failings of humans, accompanied by there incomplete understanding of theology.

But their understanding of 'theology' is Judaism. It is only a 'misunderstanding' when viewed by the later leech religion - Christianity. (I don't mean to call xianity a leech religion, but it is the only word I could think of right now. Christianity is built on Judaism, just as Mormonism is built on Christianity)

With the life of Jesus, the understanding of theology improves and evolves.

I don't see Christianity as an improvement of Judaism. It is a different religion - more gnostic. "I and the Father are One"

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by elliotfc

No, I think discernment is in order when it comes to pedagogy. You don't necessarily divulge the whole and entire truth to kids of a young age, anymore than if you were teaching a child science you would immediately come out with quantum mechanics, or the mechanics of sex.

-Elliot

Yeah, don't tell the kids everything, or they might not get indoctrinated and brain-washed as well as when you repeat little snippets over and over and over, and not be strong little Christian children...

[farmermike]

"Is it not extraordinary to the point of being a miracle, that so loose and ill-constructed a narrative in an antique translation of a dubious text should after so many centruies still have power to quell and dominate a restless, opionated, over-exercised and under-nourished twentieth-century mind?"-Malcolm Muggeridge-Jesus Rediscovered Collins 1969

"Human beings are only bearable when the last defences of their egos are down: when they stand helpless and humbled, before the awful circumstances of their being. It is only thus that the point of the cross becomes clear and the point of the cross is the point of life." Ibid pg. 118

Lourdes- There was even a tiny miracle for me. A woman asked me to go and see her sister who was very sick. So of course I went along. The sister was obviously at the point of death, and like any other glib child of twentieth-century enlightenment, I had nothing to say, until I noticed in the most extraordinarily vivid way, as in some girl with whom I had suddenly fallen in love, thtat her eyes were quite fabulously luminous and beautiful. As I said this, the three of us -the dying woman, her sister and I -were somehow caught up into a kind of ecstasy. I can't describe it in any other way. It was as though I say God's love shining down on us visibly, in an actual radiance. That was my miracle at Lourdes, and whenver I hear the Ave Maria they sing there all the time-otherwise, I expect, a rather banal tune- I remember my miracle with great job. ibid

[dmarker]

Originally posted by elliotfc


Yes, yes they are. Christians view the Bible as and "Old Testament" and a "New Testament". Many Old Testament stories show the failings of humans, accompanied by there incomplete understanding of theology. With the life of Jesus, the understanding of theology improves and evolves. This is why most Christian parents focus on the New Testament when it comes to instruction, and use the Old Testament in a more mythological sense.



No, I think discernment is in order when it comes to pedagogy. You don't necessarily divulge the whole and entire truth to kids of a young age, anymore than if you were teaching a child science you would immediately come out with quantum mechanics, or the mechanics of sex.

-Elliot

What do parents tell their children about Jesus killing a fig tree for not having fruit out of season? Or when Jesus says "I bring not peace but a sword"?

The problem is that sanitized verses are all many adults know about the bible. Many haven't read the bible throughly and most never discuss the verses that aren't so pleasant.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc





No, I think discernment is in order when it comes to pedagogy. You don't necessarily divulge the whole and entire truth to kids of a young age, anymore than if you were teaching a child science you would immediately come out with quantum mechanics, or the mechanics of sex.

-Elliot

Waiting for mental maturity before presenting a person with quantum mechanics is not quite the same as " I'll save the bad stuff for later. Once you are brainwashed... "

Maybe you could come up with a better analogy?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by farmermike
"Is it not extraordinary to the point of being a miracle, that so loose and ill-constructed a narrative in an antique translation of a dubious text should after so many centruies still have power to quell and dominate a restless, opionated, over-exercised and under-nourished twentieth-century mind?"-Malcolm Muggeridge-Jesus Rediscovered Collins 1969

"Human beings are only bearable when the last defences of their egos are down: when they stand helpless and humbled, before the awful circumstances of their being. It is only thus that the point of the cross becomes clear and the point of the cross is the point of life." Ibid pg. 118

Lourdes- There was even a tiny miracle for me. A woman asked me to go and see her sister who was very sick. So of course I went along. The sister was obviously at the point of death, and like any other glib child of twentieth-century enlightenment, I had nothing to say, until I noticed in the most extraordinarily vivid way, as in some girl with whom I had suddenly fallen in love, thtat her eyes were quite fabulously luminous and beautiful. As I said this, the three of us -the dying woman, her sister and I -were somehow caught up into a kind of ecstasy. I can't describe it in any other way. It was as though I say God's love shining down on us visibly, in an actual radiance. That was my miracle at Lourdes, and whenver I hear the Ave Maria they sing there all the time-otherwise, I expect, a rather banal tune- I remember my miracle with great job. ibid

But is this narrative original? The Jesus myth shares quite a bit with Mithra, Krishna, and a whole host of man-gods. Somehow the thought of divinity walking among us has great psychological appeal. Time will bring new versions of the man-god myth, who know what people will be worshipping in a few thousand years.

The olde death bed conversions, eh? I hate to tell you that there are atheists in foxholes and on death beds. I've seen an atheist with a hole eaten into his cheek from cancer who died an unrepentant heathen.

So this ecstasy is a miracle? Pretty weak if you ask me. If this woman was cured from what she was ailing, that would be a miracle.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Leaving this part out could be seen as a good example of how the times change for the better.

I’d bet children of the Old US South did get this part of the flood story, as it was used to explain slavery and racism.

Though you’d hope it seemed like a terribly poor excuse… uncovering your father’s nakedness leads to God cursing your lineage to slavery millennia later?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by farmermike
Lourdes- There was even a tiny miracle for me. A woman asked me to go and see her sister who was very sick. So of course I went along. The sister was obviously at the point of death, and like any other glib child of twentieth-century enlightenment, I had nothing to say, until I noticed in the most extraordinarily vivid way, as in some girl with whom I had suddenly fallen in love, thtat her eyes were quite fabulously luminous and beautiful. As I said this, the three of us -the dying woman, her sister and I -were somehow caught up into a kind of ecstasy. I can't describe it in any other way. It was as though I say God's love shining down on us visibly, in an actual radiance. That was my miracle at Lourdes, and whenver I hear the Ave Maria they sing there all the time-otherwise, I expect, a rather banal tune- I remember my miracle with great job. ibid

So Karen,

Your experienced miracle was subjective and cannot be objectively observed or proven in any meaningful way. That's fine because your miracle was a personal one and meaningful only to you.

But can you explain to me how your experience is actually miraculous? You have seemed to percieve something wonderful, yet unobservable or measureable by others. Much the same thing can be said about the voices heard by the insane, or the visions one might have after taking psychotropic drugs. Are these also miraculous?

The only difference I can think of is that one vision is induced by God, and one by ingestion of chemicals. The chemicals and their effects can be measured,...God cannot. Here's one small observation that helped me down the path of agnosticism; how is the Christian God who cannot (and whose effects cannot) be objectively measured or observed, different from Zeus, or Mithra, or Ba'al or "insert favorite myth"...?? How is "He" even different from nothingness?

-z

[farmermike]

That was a quote from Malcom Muggeridge, who was doing a report for the BBC at, and about Lourdes. His point was, that at the point of death, this woman was radiant. There was no physical miracle-she died. Muggeridge however was overcome in her presence, by the sure, yet- yes subjective, knowledge that they were not alone and that they were all loved.
"...He has also set eternity in the hearts of men..." Ecclesiastes 3:11b
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitities-his eternal powere and divine nature-have been clearly see, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excusse." Romans 1:20

"For everyone who asks receives: he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." Mathew7:8

I guess I think that we make it all too difficult. If there is a creator, which a find to be a logical conclusion when I look out the window, then it seems to me that he would have tried to reveal himself. And in history I find Jesus who claimed to be that reveal - a carpenter who somehow changed the course of human history. What could have happened?!

[DangerousBeliefs]

BUMP - Riddick seems to be avoiding this post....

[Riddick]

So, from what I gather, you want us to teach 6-10 year olds about Gay Butt Sex?

Do you think that's suitable material for a child 6-10 years old?

Would you teach your own child about GBS between the ages of 6 and 10?

Right. It's inappropriate for little minds.

Now, if you're a gay guy, and you're married to a gay guy, well, you call the shots.

[rachaella]

If my child asked me about "gay butt sex" I'd answer to the best of my ability. If my child asked me about "straight butt sex", I'd do the same. I think that the violence in the bible is far more traumatic to a 6-10 year old mind than "gay butt sex". So yes, I'd rather tell my child about the sexuality activity of some of the male homosexual population than read him or her the bible.

I agree that the problem is that children tend to be exposed to bible verses and thats where the buck stops when they enter adulthood, they don't hear about lot sending his daughters out to be raped. Actually reading the bible may be the best thing for people to get a better grasp of the contradictions and disturbing violence of it, so I say skeptics should be all for the bible being taught in school as long as it isn't an abridged version. Let's teach 'em everything.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
I was just wondering this morning if someone (a Christian) could explain why Noah's flood stories for children always leave out this important lesson.

Is it because it seems to contradict the lessons that Noah's flood is supposed to teach?

Is it because it seems to contradict this earlier statement?
Unofficially, the story of Noah's Ark is a bit like this:

God had been absent from mankind for many generations, and mankind became corrupted... except for one man: Noah. Even after having been absent for so long, God asked Noah to perform an impossible task, Noah obliges without question. Noah's unquestioned obediance saves mankind.

The moral being taught is what most people would call "Virtue of Faith".


As for Noah passing out in the nude, Hell if I know what that is supposed to teach...

[Ceinwyn]

To get back to the OP:

The reason it's left out for children is because it's hard to indoctrinate young minds if you give them the horrors right away.

First you tell them how good God is, and how much his Son loves them. I believe the term "Baby Jesus" is used, as in "if you don't eat your carrots, you hurt the Baby Jesus".

Then, after they're good and religionofiled, you hit them with SIN.

"Whatever you do, if we don't like it, it's a SIN."

After that, you tell them what is a sin and what isn't, with the appropriate threats of burning torment just to make sure the wee ones know who's in charge.

So basically you just freak them out until they're sobbing from fear. Then you know your job is done.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Riddick
So, from what I gather, you want us to teach 6-10 year olds about Gay Butt Sex?

Do you think that's suitable material for a child 6-10 years old?

Would you teach your own child about GBS between the ages of 6 and 10?

Right. It's inappropriate for little minds.

Now, if you're a gay guy, and you're married to a gay guy, well, you call the shots.


Where do you get "Gay Butt Sex" from these posts?

First, why not teach about the fig tree? After all, there's no GBS involved with the Baby Jesus striking down a living thing in a fit of pique.

So, Riddick, when do you think we should tell the little ones about the horrors of the bible?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by farmermike
That was a quote from Malcom Muggeridge, who was doing a report for the BBC at, and about Lourdes. His point was, that at the point of death, this woman was radiant. There was no physical miracle-she died. Muggeridge however was overcome in her presence, by the sure, yet- yes subjective, knowledge that they were not alone and that they were all loved.
"...He has also set eternity in the hearts of men..." Ecclesiastes 3:11b
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitities-his eternal powere and divine nature-have been clearly see, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excusse." Romans 1:20

"For everyone who asks receives: he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." Mathew7:8

I guess I think that we make it all too difficult. If there is a creator, which a find to be a logical conclusion when I look out the window, then it seems to me that he would have tried to reveal himself. And in history I find Jesus who claimed to be that reveal - a carpenter who somehow changed the course of human history. What could have happened?!

That's all well and good Karen, but you didn't really address my question. How do you know that God exists? He is invisible, his properties are unmeasureable. How is something that is unmeasureable really all that different from something that does not exist at all?

If God is to be discerned from "what is made" then how do we know that the Christian God of the Holy Bible (KJV), and not Zeus or Mithra made it? Also God is omnipotent and loving...and yet evil exists, which means he is either not omnipotent, or not loving.

-z

[pupdog]

Yes, by all means, protect the children from the gruesome and gory. When Itchy shoots an arrow through Scratchy's ears, turn off the TV and tells the kids how evil such action is. And wait until they're older before telling them of the glorious heorism of Jael, who pounded a tent peg into the skull of the sleeping Sisera (Judges 4 ).

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Riddick
So, from what I gather, you want us to teach 6-10 year olds about Gay Butt Sex?

Do you think that's suitable material for a child 6-10 years old?

Would you teach your own child about GBS between the ages of 6 and 10?

Right. It's inappropriate for little minds.

Now, if you're a gay guy, and you're married to a gay guy, well, you call the shots.

Gay butt sex? Where do I mention that? Seems like your answer is a Red Herring.

What I want to know is why they don't say at the end... that Noah got drunk and passed out in the nude. When his son accidently came along and saw him, he did the right thing and told his brothers. His brothers showed the proper respect for Noah (because they knew about the nudity from their brother). And when Noah awoke, he cursed his son's lineage into slavery.

Seems Christians have selective blinders on when they're teaching the Bible... so as not to confuse the ambiguity.

[davefoc]

This is slightly off topic, but what percentage of Christians have any idea about some of the things that are in the Bible, particularly the old testament?

This Noah dancing naked stuff is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to weird stuff in the bible that is not part of general Christian knowledge about the old testament.

Do Christians know that God ordered Saul to massacre every living man, women, child and animal of a particular enemy and when Saul complied except he left a few animals for sacrifice alive God was so mad that Saul could never again gain his favor.

Do Christians know about the no shell fish, and the no makeup and the blessing of the mold and the stoning of people who don't follow various rules?

I don't think so in general.

The reason that they don't tell the Noah dancing around naked story to children is the same reason that they don't tell the story to adults. A lot of stuff in the bible is pretty silly and the less that it's repeated the less people will know about it.

For that matter, there's a lot of pretty shaky stuff in the new testament.

Do Christians in general know about the conflicts between the Gospels? Do Christians realize the time frame of John for the big Jesus stories is three years and only one year for the other Gospels?

My guess is that the vast majority of Christians are unaware of any conflict issues with the bible, either internally or with respect to contemporaneous history. The reason that people aren't told about this stuff as part of their religious training is that a lot of it is so difficult to swallow that it might be difficult to get believers if you were feeding them some of the bible stuff raw.

[farmermike]

First of all, I said when I look to history I find Jesus-"He was despised and refected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces, he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrow, ...he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment tha brought us peace was upon him..." Isaiah 53:3-5+. This was a description of the Jewish messiah hundreds of years before the life of Christ.
As for suffering in the world, I like the founder of World Vision's motto-"Let my heart be broken by the things that break God's heart." Unfortunately, I don't believe all the horrors in the world cause me half as much distress as they do a holy God. I guess when he made the world, it was for real. Our actions have real consequences apparently. Also God is close to the brokenhearted etc.
re why not consider Zeus etc.-I guess if I looked to Greek Mythology, I might as well consider the tooth fairy as well. Happy hunting!

[Bubbles]

Originally posted by farmermike
First of all, I said when I look to history I find Jesus-"He was despised and refected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces, he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrow, ...he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment tha brought us peace was upon him..." Isaiah 53:3-5+. This was a description of the Jewish messiah hundreds of years before the life of Christ.
As for suffering in the world, I like the founder of World Vision's motto-"Let my heart be broken by the things that break God's heart." Unfortunately, I don't believe all the horrors in the world cause me half as much distress as they do a holy God. I guess when he made the world, it was for real. Our actions have real consequences apparently. Also God is close to the brokenhearted etc.
re why not consider Zeus etc.-I guess if I looked to Greek Mythology, I might as well consider the tooth fairy as well. Happy hunting!

Actually, there is nothing in the Isaiah text to give one any reason to apply equate the suffering servant with the messiah. It is, of course, a normal interpretation in Christendom, and a not entirely unheard of one in Judaism, but it is not an interpretation based upon the text itself.

There is very good reason in the text to see the suffering servant as the portion of the Hebrew people in exile in Babylon. Of course, you can do as Christendom has done and consider the life of Jesus as a summation of the life of Israwl, but that fairs no better as a mode of interpreting the OT.

If, by your statement, you mean "It was written hundreds of years beforehand, and it is entirely right!", then I can only say. . . not exactly. The suffering servant passages speak of two kinds of affliction: injustice and disease (typical translations make this as vague as they can). At no point does the NT claim Jesus to have been diseased.

I don't wish to equate all unverifiable beliefs with belief in the tooth fairy, but surely you see that you cannot toss any out as silly if you acceot any as true. You can, of course, believe one and not another as the evidence, so far as you understand it, indicates, but that is far different.

To move on to other posts:

Actually, the 'disobedience' of Saul is quite frequently taught in a god many Christian circles. Most Christians have a vague understanding of the rules in the OT. My experience of conservative Christians tells me that, when they find a rule they like, they proclaim it as the will of God. When they find a rule they don't like, they talk about grace over law. Gotta love an interpretive technique that always tells you what you want to hear.

As far as the "Noah got drunk and passed out naked" thing. I mean, who hasn't done that? Sounds like my time as an undergraduate!

The part about getting drunk is generally explained (or rationalized) as that Noah was unprepared for the result; that it was ignorance, not will, that led to him getting plowed. A bit silly, really, I think; but we're dealing with REALLY OLD stories here.

The rest of the stroy reads oddly, as has been noted. Ham walked into a cave, saw Dad naked, told his brothers who covered Dad up without looking at him, and then a particular group of Ham's descendants got cursed. The end seems a bit harsh based on the leadup.

Personally, I would have needed, after saw one of his parents naked, a step 'three hours later: stopped vomitting'. It has been speculated that there is something else in the story that is only hinted at in the text. Rape? Maybe.

The curse itself, which is on the Canaanites as opposed to all of the seed of Ham, is really a way for Israel to look at the neighbors they have and hate and feel justified in hating them and (when the opportunity arrises) mistreating them.

As far as what parts of the Bible are taught at what ages, that is a complicated question. First, it comes to the matter of the primary content of Christianity against minor or incorrect articles. If you believe in a sharp escatological Christianity, in which the whole point is that God divides us into people he likes and people he doesn't like and rewards the ones he likes and punishes the ones he hates. . . well then, you teach the book of Joshua early and often, and you skip over the 'love thy neighbor' crap.

If love and covenant are the primary theme of Christianity, you can look at Joshua as a relic of a harsher era and see something abiding in such an unfamiliar background. I have no problem saying that the church now is closer to truth than the church then. I don't say that because they were Jewish / pagan (I mean the story has pre-Jewish origins, not that Jews are pagans) and I'm Christian, but because I do believe that there is progress to truth. I don't believe it is without mis-steps or stagnation, but none-the-less, I do believe that we are getting somewhere.

There are horrible things in the world. There are horrible things in Christian canon and history. I think any historical religion with any history would be able to say the same about itself. It is different to shield children from some of the terrible things that happen in the world. It is different to shield them from the terrible things found in what you want them to believe, but I'm not sure that the cases are entirely different.

[farmermike]

I can imagine Noah might have been in a foul mood when he came to,probably slipped on some vomit also.And sure we all lose patience with our kids from time to time, but damning my boys and their lineage to slavery would seem a little extreme.Although on April fools day when they filled the sugar bowl with salt that could have been close.We can't forget that Noah was 600+ when he took on that big project.I don't know if he had been retired or semi retired for the last 540+ years,but it was certainly an imense undertaking for even a man half his age.

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
Gay butt sex? Where do I mention that? Seems like your answer is a Red Herring.

I think Riddick may be suggesting that "saw the nakedness of his father" is a euphemism for "raped". If so, it wouldn't be the first time I've heard this interpretation, which, in my opinion, may be an attempt on the part of the interpreter to explain Noah's harsh response.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by gentlehorse


I think Riddick may be suggesting that "saw the nakedness of his father" is a euphemism for "raped". If so, it wouldn't be the first time I've heard this interpretation, which, in my opinion, may be an attempt on the part of the interpreter to explain Noah's harsh response.

Interesting interpretation. If, per the Bible, we all descended from Noah's children... couldn't God have picked better genes to work with?

Or maybe the Old Testament is just obssessed with incest?

[Ipecac]

It says a lot about "God's" intelligence that he had the entire world to choose from and chose as his "most righteous man" a guy who gets wasted almost immediately after stepping off the ark and sons who, by some interpretations, rape their father. Also, given that he had killed all of humanity because of their sins, why the heck would he "curse" anyone right after the flood was over?

Sheesh. The bible is stupid.

[farmermike]

karen

About Isaiah 53 not referencing Jesus-funny the new testatment writers frequently qoute it in like fashion. Oh yes, but but but but but but but and so on and so on and so on.......
I just find it incredulous that people who claim to so open minded/smart etc. get their backs up about the possibility or even reality of absolute truth but I digress.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by farmermike
karen

About Isaiah 53 not referencing Jesus-funny the new testatment writers frequently qoute it in like fashion. Oh yes, but but but but but but but and so on and so on and so on.......

So if some guy today claims he is the returned Jesus, you'd believe him because he could point to the New Testament and say, "See, the bible predicts my return,"?

[DaveW]

Originally posted by farmermike
karen

About Isaiah 53 not referencing Jesus-funny the new testatment writers frequently qoute it in like fashion. Oh yes, but but but but but but but and so on and so on and so on.......
I just find it incredulous that people who claim to so open minded/smart etc. get their backs up about the possibility or even reality of absolute truth but I digress.

I just find it incredulous that people who take their god on faith get their backs up about the rational questioning of their dogma.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by farmermike
About Isaiah 53 not referencing Jesus-funny the new testatment writers frequently qoute it in like fashion.

Matthew was intent on making the OT predict the NT - but got himself in trouble with Zechariah 9:9:

9:9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Matthew thought this meant Jesus rode into Jerusalem on two animals!

Matthew 21:1
And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

21:2
Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

21:3
And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

21:4
All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,

21:5
Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

21:6
And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

21:7
And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

One can actually see "Matthew" forcing the prophesy. I believe this is very telling.

The rest of the Gospel writers got it right:

Mark 11:7 And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.

Luke 19:35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.

John 12:14 And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon.

There was no prophesy. There were only later writers manipulating history.