Book Challenge By Fundy Wife!

[★ Citsonga ★]

Here's another excerpt from that letter I wrote, in which I address another claim in Matthew to be a fulfillment of a prophecy in Isaiah:

 

Later on in Matthew's gospel, we read about Jesus healing some sick people and telling them "not to tell who he was" (Matthew 12:15-16). Then we read, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: 'Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my spirit on him and he will proclaim justice to the nations. He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory. In his name the nations will put their hope" (12:17-21). So, Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of this servant, right?

 

Well, let's take a closer look. Matthew quoted Isaiah 42:1-4, but what does the context indicate? Who is the "servant" that Isaiah was referring to? He clearly states in the preceding chapter, "But you, O Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend, I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you" (Isaiah 41:8-9). Clearly, then, the "servant" allegedly "chosen" by God is the nation of Israel, the descendants of Abraham, also referred to as Jacob.

 

This is reiterated in the following chapters as well. We read, "But now listen, O Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen. This is what the LORD says -- he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen" (Isaiah 44:1-2). Again, it's clear to see that the nation of Israel, also referred to as Jacob, is the servant ("Jeshurun" means "the upright one," and is also used in Deuteronomy 32:15; 33:5,26).

 

He continues, "Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are my servant, O Israel. I have made you, you are my servant; O Israel, I will not forget you" (Isaiah 44:26). In addition, we read, "The LORD has redeemed his servant Jacob" (48:2), and, "You are my servant, Israel" (49:3).

 

While Isaiah repeatedly refers to Israel as God's "servant" and "chosen" one, he never once names anyone else as God's "servant!" In light of this, can there be any question at all about whom Isaiah is referring to as God's "servant," the "chosen" one?

 

But, once again, some argue for a "dual prophecy," in which Jesus is the final fulfillment. However, is that really supported by the text? Not only does Isaiah not mention a dual fulfillment, but does the Jesus of the gospels really fit the description of the "servant"? We read, "Hear, you deaf; look, you blind, and see! Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like the messenger I send? Who is blind like the one committed to me, blind like the servant of the LORD? You have seen many things, but have paid no attention; your ears are open, but you hear nothing" (Isaiah 42:18-20). Was the Jesus of the gospels blind and deaf to the word of God? Did the Jesus of the gospels pay no attention to his Master?

 

Clearly, then, Jesus was not a fulfillment of the "servant" in Isaiah. The "servant" was Israel, allegedly chosen by God, but rebellious against his ways. Yet, Isaiah claimed that God would make his servant (Israel) "a light to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6).

 

So, once again, we have a case of Matthew misusing the Old Testament to try to support his claim that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

[★ Citsonga ★]

But wait, there's more! This is the last part from that letter (it was a very long letter) that deals with alleged fulfillments of prophecies in Isaiah. This excerpt deals with the Matthew 13 claim of fulfilling Isaiah 6:

 

Matthew says that the disciples asked Jesus why he taught in parables (Matthew 13:10). Jesus responded with, "This is why I speak to them in parables: 'Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand'" (13:13).

 

Then Jesus, according to Matthew, claims, "In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them'" (Matthew 13:14-15). But, could the people of Jesus' time have been a fulfillment of the prophecy Jesus allegedly quoted?

 

Matthew was loosely quoting Isaiah, but the original was stated as a command, and not a prophecy of a future event. Isaiah said that he was told, "Go and tell this people: 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" (Isaiah 6:9-10).

 

Isaiah continued by saying that he inquired, "For how long, O Lord?" (Isaiah 6:11a), to which he was answered, "Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged, until the LORD has sent everyone far away and the land I utterly forsaken. And though a tenth remains in the land, it will again be laid waste" (6:11b-13a). Clearly, this describes Israel being taken captive in exile. It was "until" that time that Isaiah was supposed to issue the command.

 

As such, we have a command for Isaiah to issue until the time of the exile, and not a prophecy of people during Jesus' time!

 

Again, therefore, Matthew has taken Isaiah out of context in order to make it appear that prophecy had been fulfilled with his story of Jesus. This time is even more serious, though, in that the error is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

 

Upon seeing things like this, I had to ask myself: If the NT authors were reporting true history, then what motivation would they have had to butter up their story by taking OT texts out of context in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments?

 

Personally, I now see the gospels as having practically no historical accuracy to them at all, and some of the stories included were clearly constructed around misused OT texts in order to make it appear like divine prophecies had been fulfilled.

[Centauro]

Thanks all for the great insights into the emotional states of fundamentalists and the background on the book of Isaiah. Excellent stuff. I will certainly tuck that away for future reference. This kind of information certainly gives me a better understanding of how to approach things while reading and dealing with my wife.

 

We have had 3 sessions of readings. First one was reading the introduction and 1st chapter of Misquoting Jesus.

She was quite agitated after this, zeroing in on how Ehrman was "never a believer" and his motive is to de-convert christians. I was prepared for that. I youtubed a few of his debates prior to our readings to get a feel for Ehrman's style and objectives. I zeroed in on the historical points he made, not the theological points, which is a whole different ball game. It totally stumped her. She kept coming back to theology, and I never took the red herring, always pointing out the data refuting the originality of present day scripture. I was not going to debate how things were harmonized within the bible, I wanted to show that if someone says the bible is literal, one has to have the original unchanged document in order to prove ones point. She could not refute that things were changed and added, and this caused quite a bit of anxiety, manifested in her agitation.

 

The next day we read Isaiah, 15 chapters. I didn't argue any points, just let her explain the metaphors and prophesies. She then suggested we go back to Ehrman. We read the next chapter and I loved the way he step by step explains how the scribes went about changing things for various reasons. Ehrman's approach and style is so readable that even hard core evangelicals are made to take a good look at how historically the book christians so rely on can be called into question regarding its origins. She was again agitated by his findings, but wanted to read more. I think she is anxious to find some kind of chink in his "historical" armor and is hoping for a comeback, but this is really stumping her, as his approach as a historian is difficult to argue as she (like most christians) have no real grasp of the historical beginnings of the text they hold is such esteem.

 

The third session was all Ehrman, about actual texts of the NT. She was more calm with this session. Ehrman sited specific parts in scripture that were added and changed and although she tried to justify some of them, they seemed to overwhelm her and she wanted to take a break for a bit. That was 2 days ago and we haven't read since. We have a lot going on this weekend so I don't think we will do any more reading the next couple days, but this has been interesting.

 

I don't think this will break her faith, but it just might give her a different perspective into how others see the bible. I have repeatedly told her that true historians don't really care what one may believe, it is their personal choice. But if you hold up a certain document to be historically true, it must meet certain criteria to be accepted as true...that's all.

 

I will post more when I have had some more sessions. Thanks again for the comments and insights.

 

Centauro

[Mongo]

I don't think this will break her faith, but it just might give her a different perspective into how others see the bible. I have repeatedly told her that true historians don't really care what one may believe, it is their personal choice. But if you hold up a certain document to be historically true, it must meet certain criteria to be accepted as true...that's all.

 

The concept of history being "true" makes me queasy. I don't know exactly how Historians categorize things but I don't hear them using words like "true" but rather probable or factual.

 

There are facts that can be established but the interpretation of those facts leaves a whole lot for discussion.

 

Did Aristotle actually exist? An apologist threw that at me and I needed time to figure that out.

 

At some point I could see that written history, is a story told by a human who is subject to the wiles of ancient spin doctors. The bible is no different except perhaps that Paul might be the greatest spin doctor that ever lived. Then again, maybe it was Plato?

 

Mongo

[Centauro]

I don't think this will break her faith, but it just might give her a different perspective into how others see the bible. I have repeatedly told her that true historians don't really care what one may believe, it is their personal choice. But if you hold up a certain document to be historically true, it must meet certain criteria to be accepted as true...that's all.

 

The concept of history being "true" makes me queasy. I don't know exactly how Historians categorize things but I don't hear them using words like "true" but rather probable or factual.

 

There are facts that can be established but the interpretation of those facts leaves a whole lot for discussion.

 

Did Aristotle actually exist? An apologist threw that at me and I needed time to figure that out.

 

At some point I could see that written history, is a story told by a human who is subject to the wiles of ancient spin doctors. The bible is no different except perhaps that Paul might be the greatest spin doctor that ever lived. Then again, maybe it was Plato?

 

Mongo

 

 

Excellent post. Using the word "true" was most likely a Freudian slip by me.

 

Indeed, Ehrman uses the word probable in many of his statements; and in fact, that is the exact word I used with my wife when she said Ehrman's research could not be proven. I agreed, but asked her about the probability and she had no answer to that. In the absolutist's world, probable is a seldom used word, I suppose.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Thanks all for the great insights into the emotional states of fundamentalists and the background on the book of Isaiah. Excellent stuff.

 

Regarding Isaiah, there's something else you may be interested in, a book called "Isaiah 53: Who Is The Servant?"

I've read some very positive comments regarding this book, so I'm thinking about getting it myself.

[Centauro]

Fellow heathens,

 

No progress with the book readings since my last post. She has not commented on Ehrman since our last reading. I am unsure if she is avoiding this or has just been too busy for it. I will suggest reading some more of the bible to get things jump started again..

[Shyone]

I have ordered Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus for her first read. I will let you know what happens.

I plan on doing some bible reading with her in the next few days and will post results.

Not sure what book we will start, but I will let her pick the one and go from there.

It might not be suitable to your particular situation, but giving a critical reading of her selected bible verses and pointing out what you think is good or bad will orient her to the idea that Humans have our own morality independent of the bible.

 

See if you can get her to select Leviticus or Deuteronomy. Oh, yeah!

[Centauro]

I have ordered Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus for her first read. I will let you know what happens.

I plan on doing some bible reading with her in the next few days and will post results.

Not sure what book we will start, but I will let her pick the one and go from there.

It might not be suitable to your particular situation, but giving a critical reading of her selected bible verses and pointing out what you think is good or bad will orient her to the idea that Humans have our own morality independent of the bible.

 

See if you can get her to select Leviticus or Deuteronomy. Oh, yeah!

 

 

Been there, done that.. Her response was "that is from the old covenant, we now have the new covenant with the NT."

I need to focus on the NT and Ehrman does that flawlessly and in a tone that is non threatening and it has worked well for me so far. She has actually seemed very interested to get into Misquoting Jesus, as I believe she feels she has lots of ammo to refute what he says. We have read the first 3 chapters and it has been difficult for her to counter what Ehrman presents. I have read the whole book since getting it for us and she will be in for a surprise.

It still amazes me how few christians, and especially fundies, have no idea how the NT was developed and groomed to be the text that is is today. They actually believe that the words they have today are original and inerrant. Truly amazing..

[Neon Genesis]

Other not too anti-theistic books that deal with the NT that you might want to read with your wife that I would recommend are Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, by the biblical scholar and liberal Christian Marcus Borg. And also Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, who was the co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, have co-authored a new book that came out this year on Paul that I also recommend called The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon.

[Centauro]

Other not too anti-theistic books that deal with the NT that you might want to read with your wife that I would recommend are Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, by the biblical scholar and liberal Christian Marcus Borg. And also Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, who was the co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, have co-authored a new book that came out this year on Paul that I also recommend called The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon.

 

 

Thanks Neon.....I will definitely check those out.

[rocksandstuff]

The section of Misquoting Jesus that I found most interesting was the one about the theologically motivated revisions to the texts. The other stuff, while it challenges an inerrantist reading of the bible, is still stuff that happened more or less accidental and can be more easily written off, and are less likely to challenge a concept of what the "core doctrines" of Christianity are. I think the theologically motivated revisions are especially challenging to a conservative reading of the bible because they were deliberately aimed at affecting core doctrines.

[monkeygirl]

Start her with Misquoting Jesus. Its not some staunch atheist but it will pull at the thread and slowly she will not know what to believe about Christianity anymore. When I started my de-conversion I didn't want to touch anything by Dawkins or Harris.....now I love them. Bart Ehrman's books and the problem of suffering is what made me lose my faith completely.

[Centauro]

The section of Misquoting Jesus that I found most interesting was the one about the theologically motivated revisions to the texts. The other stuff, while it challenges an inerrantist reading of the bible, is still stuff that happened more or less accidental and can be more easily written off, and are less likely to challenge a concept of what the "core doctrines" of Christianity are. I think the theologically motivated revisions are especially challenging to a conservative reading of the bible because they were deliberately aimed at affecting core doctrines.

 

Well said. That is exactly what my intent has been; especially to my literalist/inerrant wife. I have unsuccessfully tried to point out the same principles with regard to different denominations with her. But I have always gotten the same response as I have gotten from other fundies. "The differences between denominations is minor. We all believe in god inspired word."

 

We have not gotten to the theological motivations regarding the changes in scripture and I hope she will see that the scibes did change things to fit their world view and beliefs.

[monkeygirl]

 

Been there, done that.. Her response was "that is from the old covenant, we now have the new covenant with the NT."

I need to focus on the NT and Ehrman does that flawlessly and in a tone that is non threatening and it has worked well for me so far. She has actually seemed very interested to get into Misquoting Jesus, as I believe she feels she has lots of ammo to refute what he says. We have read the first 3 chapters and it has been difficult for her to counter what Ehrman presents. I have read the whole book since getting it for us and she will be in for a surprise.

It still amazes me how few christians, and especially fundies, have no idea how the NT was developed and groomed to be the text that is is today. They actually believe that the words they have today are original and inerrant. Truly amazing..

 

 

 

 

Next book should be Jesus' Interrupted by Bart Ehrman. It takes it even further and really starts putting the doctrine on trail. Very good stuff.

[Centauro]

Start her with Misquoting Jesus. Its not some staunch atheist but it will pull at the thread and slowly she will not know what to believe about Christianity anymore. When I started my de-conversion I didn't want to touch anything by Dawkins or Harris.....now I love them. Bart Ehrman's books and the problem of suffering is what made me lose my faith completely.

 

 

I bought Ehrman's "God's Problem" and am eager to get into it. I am sure my library will see more of his work as we progress.

[monkeygirl]

Start her with Misquoting Jesus. Its not some staunch atheist but it will pull at the thread and slowly she will not know what to believe about Christianity anymore. When I started my de-conversion I didn't want to touch anything by Dawkins or Harris.....now I love them. Bart Ehrman's books and the problem of suffering is what made me lose my faith completely.

 

 

I bought Ehrman's "God's Problem" and am eager to get into it. I am sure my library will see more of his work as we progress.

 

 

I had a hard time reading "God's Problem" because it was so depressing. I had already left Christianity by the time I read that book. The main reason I started questioning Christianity in the first place was Theodicy so I wanted to read a book about what the Bible had to say about why we suffered.

 

I really am getting the itch to read Lost Christianities.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I have unsuccessfully tried to point out the same principles with regard to different denominations with her. But I have always gotten the same response as I have gotten from other fundies. "The differences between denominations is minor. We all believe in god inspired word."

 

 

But wasn't she saying before Ehrman must not have been a true xtian and so she's contradicting herself?

[monkeygirl]

My husband is in the middle of de-converting. He is very intelligent, analytical but he takes his time with everything and really ponders stuff. Honestly I have always been surprised he was a Christian (same as his father) because they are not emotional people and logic is EVERYTHING. Thing is I don't think they ever really put Christianity to the test because of fear.

 

 

Anyways I read some of Jesus Interrupted to him on the way to the beach and it was a serious dagger into Christianity. The part about Matthew having Jesus ride in on a donkey and a colt to fullfill prophecy from the OT was huge to him. You realize the writers of the NT had a serious agenda and it wasn't pure.

[HRDWarrior]

I just finished Jesus Interrupted - great book. Granted, I'm reading it post-deconversion, but it really brought to light a LOT of the issues I've always had with christianity and just never did get answered. My hubby is also working through it (much slower), and although I would say by my old standards he's no longer a christian, I think he'd still say he was - although he's so close to a full deconversion it's just a matter at this point of dropping the title. These books are great at finding those flaws that churches try so hard to cover up from the fundies.

[monkeygirl]

I just finished Jesus Interrupted - great book. Granted, I'm reading it post-deconversion, but it really brought to light a LOT of the issues I've always had with christianity and just never did get answered. My hubby is also working through it (much slower), and although I would say by my old standards he's no longer a christian, I think he'd still say he was - although he's so close to a full deconversion it's just a matter at this point of dropping the title. These books are great at finding those flaws that churches try so hard to cover up from the fundies.

 

 

Wow, that sounds just like my husband. I feel very fortunate that we've been able to go through this process somewhat together though I was started earlier and got here faster, we both just go about things differently.

[monkeygirl]

Honestly I have always been surprised he was a Christian (same as his father) because they are not emotional people and logic is EVERYTHING. Thing is I don't think they ever really put Christianity to the test because of fear.

 

People who are sexually or emotionally repressed seem to be able to funnel that energy through religious rituals or groups that feel safe and/or "appropriate". Compartmentalization. Could that be at work here?

 

Phanta

 

 

Possibly so. My husband is great at compartmentalizing ( I am not, I can't do it). I know that has been the case in other areas of his life.

Neither him or his father are very emotional about Christianity. I think they both greatly value security so actually putting Christianity to the test would be very risky for them. My husband has worked on taking more risk in life, imo investigate one's belief system is about as risky as it can get so I'm very proud of him.

[Shyone]

I just finished Jesus Interrupted - great book. Granted, I'm reading it post-deconversion, but it really brought to light a LOT of the issues I've always had with christianity and just never did get answered. My hubby is also working through it (much slower), and although I would say by my old standards he's no longer a christian, I think he'd still say he was - although he's so close to a full deconversion it's just a matter at this point of dropping the title. These books are great at finding those flaws that churches try so hard to cover up from the fundies.

 

 

Wow, that sounds just like my husband. I feel very fortunate that we've been able to go through this process somewhat together though I was started earlier and got here faster, we both just go about things differently.

I don't mean to come across as a misogynist, but I had always thought that women would be less likely to deconvert than men. If I listed the reasons, I would sound misogynistic, but women do seem to be involved to a greater degree than men in church activities (except, of course, in leadership roles).

[Centauro]

 

 

I have unsuccessfully tried to point out the same principles with regard to different denominations with her. But I have always gotten the same response as I have gotten from other fundies. "The differences between denominations is minor. We all believe in god inspired word."

 

 

But wasn't she saying before Ehrman must not have been a true xtian and so she's contradicting herself?

 

 

Yes, she is contradicting herself! I will tuck that away, hehe.

[ShallowByThyGame]

I don't mean to come across as a misogynist, but I had always thought that women would be less likely to deconvert than men. If I listed the reasons, I would sound misogynistic, but women do seem to be involved to a greater degree than men in church activities (except, of course, in leadership roles).

 

I would take gender out of it and say that more emotional people are less likely to deconvert.

 

The logical arguments are weak, but the feelings are what people get stuck on. Noone likes that sinking feeling in their gut that they might be wrong about something, and everyone likes the spine-tingling sensation of being right and pure and one with the universe. It's just harder to argue against personal experience.