₦airaland Forum

you asked quite honest questions. would love to discuss with you in a restricted thread Grizzlybear. would mention you when I am ready.

naijadeyhia:
YOU DO NOT NEED THIS ARGUMENT. PLS CEASE!

I'm not arguing on the fact n truth of JESUS CHRIST the LORD my Saviour

I'm responding to GrizzlyBear's comment on Isaiah 52 n 53

Exegesis
What is exegesis and how does it apply here? Exegesis is an ancient literary process of interpreting an old text, by new writing. What this means is that a writer begins to write a text based on his interpretation of previous texts.

The bible is riddled with instances of Exegesis, where a writer writes a text to conform to an old prophesy.

I'll provide proof.

Zechariah 9:9, prophesies about the coming of Zion's king.
It reads "See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Now in the gospel of mark 11:9, we have Jesus sending his disciples to go get a colt for him to ride on.
It reads: “Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here"

Luke 19: 30-35 also reads similar.

But mathew complicates things and accentuates his exegesis.

Mathew 22: 2-7 reads “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you
will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie
them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to
you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them
right away.”
This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the
prophet: to Daughter Zion, 5 ‘See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey. The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed
them. They brought the donkey and the colt and placed
their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on.

Now examining the description of each of the three gospels, there is an obvious disparity. Mathew's description contradicts Luke's and Mark's. Why is this so? Well, this is an obvious proof of exegesis and a sad one at that. Mathew tried so hard to make his story reconcile with the prophesy in Zechariah, that he made it so obvious that his story was fabricated. It's impossible for Jesus to have sat on two animals at once.

Now the big question is, which other account of the story of jesus was fabricated like that of Mathew's?

tunene66:
I'm not arguing on the fact n truth of JESUS CHRIST the LORD my Saviour
I'm responding to GrizzlyBear's comment on Isaiah 52 n 53

STILL IGNORE!

lordnicklaus:
Hey Grizzlybear, would love to discuss with you but I am kinda busy at the moment. I love honest questions as these, so we can take it privately in a restricted thread. would mention you when I am ready.

Okay.

Why should the creator of the universe have a son? How did this happen? If man was created in God's image, then there had to be sexual intercourse for this to happen. If there was, then where is the mother?
Jesus Christ Is Not The Son Of God Because He Was Begotten Or Created. It Is Because He Is The Revelation Of God, That's Also The Reason He's Called The Word Of God. I Won't Get Into This But There's More.

naijadeyhia:
YOU DO NOT NEED THIS ARGUMENT. PLS CEASE!

Why are you being evasive? Are you afraid of the truth?

The birth of Jesus.

The gospel account of the birth of Jesus has dug a big hole of uncertainty and confusion in the landscape of biblical history, as it presents a tide of contradictions and a tepid pointer to exegesis.

In the old testament, the Jewish messiah was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem and from the blood line of david. So christians who believed that the man Jesus who they followed was the actual son of God, had to prove this in their account of his birth. This was in my opinion, the biggest mountain to climb for the bible writers.

Mark, the earliest of the writers, plays safe and doesn't give any account of Jesus' birth. John also follows suit and starts his story by describing Jesus as the word being made flesh. But Matthew and luke wanted to prove by all means that Jesus was the messiah that was promised, and they paid a price in contradiction and inconsistency of their accounts.

Mathew begins his account by trying to link Jesus to the David's lineage. He succeeds in a weird way. But his exegesis is noticed when luke tries to do his, and contradicts mathew.

Reading mathew chapter 1 and luke 1:23-38, just reveals an obvious contradiction born of desperation.

But does this shameful exegesis end here? Of course not.

The bible already prophesied that the messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. So any writer's goal was to make sure Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Now watch a perfect pantomime of exegesis unfold.

The gospel of mark, tells no story of Jesus' birth.

The gospel of Luke however, tells of how Jesus' parents lived in Nazareth in Galilee. But now the problem for luke
was how to make sure Jesus was born in bethlehem. So what does luke do? He invents a census that forces Jesus' parent to travel to bethlehem. But this doesn't make any sense. First of all, the first census held in rome was in 6AD, during the time of Quirnus, 6 years after Jesus was born. So what census did Joseph travel for?

The gospel of Mathew, tells a completely different story. In his version Jesus'
parents live in Bethlehem. Again, Mary becomes pregnant miraculously
and gives birth in their house in Bethlehem. Herod the Great hears the
Messiah has been born via the Magi and tries to kill him by ordering
the death of all male children in the town. Jesus' family escape with
him to Egypt. They don't return to their home in Bethlehem after
Herod's death because his son is ruling Judea and so settle in Nazareth in
Galilee, despite another son of Herod ruling there as well.

Now there are few problems in Mathew's account. First, Herod the great died in 4BC. 4 years before Jesus was said to have been born. So which Herod was he referring to?

Secondly, if you notice, Mathew is trying so hard to make sure Jesus' parents stay in Nazareth, because according to him in Mathew
2:23 "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazaren." The problem now is, this prophesy is no were to be found in the old or new testament. So, where did Mathew get it from? This is clearly a case of exegesis, but what book was he trying to interpret through his writing? Probably a non canonical book.