Atheist interpretation of the Bible?

[historia]

In an earlier thread from last year, Jagella (R.I.P.) argued that Matthew 24:29 demonstrates that Jesus had a pre-scientific understanding of the stars and that this somehow belies Christian claims about Jesus' divinity.

Arguments like this are always predicated on a number of unstated (and sometimes unexamined) assumptions. And yet, what stands out to me about this particular example is precisely how common it is: The peculiar assumptions underlying this argument appear to underly many, if not most, atheist critiques of the Bible and the divinity of Christ on this site.

Which got me wondering:

1. Is there a common atheist hermeneutic of the Bible? That is, do many atheists follow a distinctive (even if informal) set of principles or methods when interpreting a passage like Matthew 24:29?

2. Is there a common Christology assumed by many atheists? That is, when atheists assail the divinity of Christ, are they often critiquing a distinctive conception of Christ's nature?

3. Do either of those distinctive views correspond to orthodox Christian interpretations of the Bible and the divinity of Christ? If not, then are atheist critiques of the Bible and the divinity of Christ properly critiques of Christianity, or are they something else?

[unknown soldier]

In an earlier thread from last year, Jagella (R.I.P.)...

If you can't out-argue somebody, then use force to silence her or him. It worked for the inquisition.

...argued that Matthew 24:29 demonstrates that Jesus had a pre-scientific understanding of the stars and that this somehow belies Christian claims about Jesus' divinity.

Well, if I know my science, stars cannot fall from the sky. They're too big for one thing.

Arguments like this are always predicated on a number of unstated (and sometimes unexamined) assumptions.

So sometimes people don't "examine" their assumptions. Aside from some atheists, I wonder who else does that.

And yet, what stands out to me about this particular example is precisely how common it is: The peculiar assumptions underlying this argument appear to underly many, if not most, atheist critiques of the Bible and the divinity of Christ on this site.

What "peculiar assumptions" are you referring to? Is it peculiar to assume if the Gospel writer quotes Jesus as talking like he had a prescientific view of the cosmos, then Jesus did have a prescientific view of the cosmos? It seems odd to me that the presumed creator of the cosmos spoke of that cosmos as if he knew nothing about the true nature of the stars.

Is there a common atheist hermeneutic of the Bible? That is, do many atheists follow a distinctive (even if informal) set of principles or methods when interpreting a passage like Matthew 24:29?

Atheists do indeed differ over the way they might interpret the Bible, so no, there is no "common atheist hermeneutic of the Bible." However, no atheist would conclude that anything in the Bible is divinely authored, or if she did, then she would no longer be an atheist.

Personally, I try not to distort anything in the Bible and am careful not to add or subtract anything from it. To the best of my ability I try to understand what the writers meant, and I think doing so is made easier by considering their cultures. So in the case of Jesus, I try to interpret what the Gospel writers said of him in light of what early-first-century Jews knew and believed.

Is there a common Christology assumed by many atheists? That is, when atheists assail the divinity of Christ, are they often critiquing a distinctive conception of Christ's nature?

"Assail" is a strong word, is it not?

But you are correct, many atheists critique the character of Christ as he is portrayed in the Gospel. I don't think all atheists think of the character of Christ in the same way, so no, there is no single "distinctive conception of Christ's nature." Atheists, assuming they even care about Jesus, would either see him as merely human or a legendary figure who may have not existed.

Do either of those distinctive views correspond to orthodox Christian interpretations of the Bible and the divinity of Christ?

Obviously those views differ in many ways.

If not, then are atheist critiques of the Bible and the divinity of Christ properly critiques of Christianity, or are they something else?

As I see it, critiquing Christ is critiquing Christianity.

To sum up my response, I'd say that atheists differ from Christians in that if they consider Christ and his character, they have no reason to insist that Christ was good or wise or that he knew what he was talking about. Jagella, for example, saw Jesus as being wrong about the nature of the stars. Since Christians cannot accept any errors on the part of Jesus, they must work hard to reinterpret any such passages to make Jesus out to be right about the stars or at least not wrong about them.

[historia]

In an earlier thread from last year, Jagella (R.I.P.)...

If you can't out-argue somebody, then use force to silence her or him. It worked for the inquisition.

That's an odd non-sequitur. It was, after all, quite easy to "out-argue" Jagella.

Arguments like this are always predicated on a number of unstated (and sometimes unexamined) assumptions.

So sometimes people don't "examine" their assumptions. Aside from some atheists, I wonder who else does that.

Everyone.

What "peculiar assumptions" are you referring to?

Your own comments serve as a useful example here, so let's examine those.

Is it peculiar to assume if the Gospel writer quotes Jesus as talking like he had a prescientific view of the cosmos, then Jesus did have a prescientific view of the cosmos?

Not at all.

It seems odd to me that the presumed creator of the cosmos spoke of that cosmos as if he knew nothing about the true nature of the stars.

Here is where you start making assumptions.

The fist concerns the nature of Christ. This would only be "odd" if you assume a particular view of how Jesus is divine. Why did you choose to critique that particular Christology and not another?

The second assumption concerns your literal interpretation of this passage from Matthew. On that point:

Personally, I try not to distort anything in the Bible and am careful not to add or subtract anything from it. To the best of my ability I try to understand what the writers meant, and I think doing so is made easier by considering their cultures. So in the case of Jesus, I try to interpret what the Gospel writers said of him in light of what early-first-century Jews knew and believed.

Okay, so when you read ancient Jewish poetry, such as the Psalms, do you interpret them literally? Likewise, when reading an ancient Jewish apocalyptic work, like Daniel or Revelation, do you interpret the imagery there literally?

Atheists do indeed differ over the way they might interpret the Bible, so no, there is no "common atheist hermeneutic of the Bible."

I don't think all atheists think of the character of Christ in the same way, so no, there is no single "distinctive conception of Christ's nature."

I appreciate the fact that not all atheists believe the same thing. But that's not what I asked. I asked if there is a "common" way in which atheists interpret the Bible or conceive of the divinity of Christ. "Common" means prevalent or widely held, rather than universally held, so merely noting that not all atheists share the same view doesn't answer the question.

Atheists, assuming they even care about Jesus, would either see him as merely human or a legendary figure who may have not existed.

Again, to clarify: I'm not asking about what atheists believe about Jesus. Rather, what I'm noting here is that, when atheists on this site are critiquing the divinity of Christ, most seem to be critiquing a particular conception of Christ's divinity. Is there then a common atheist view of what the doctrine of the divinity of Christ entails?

Do either of those distinctive views correspond to orthodox Christian interpretations of the Bible and the divinity of Christ? If not, then are atheist critiques of the Bible and the divinity of Christ properly critiques of Christianity, or are they something else?

As I see it, critiquing Christ is critiquing Christianity.

So, if an atheist critiques the belief that Jesus actually survived the crucifixion and lived out the remainder of his life in India, that is a "critique of Christ," but is that properly a critique of Christianity? In other words, if you are critiquing a view of Christ that is not held by Christians are you actually critique Christianity?

[Difflugia]

1. Is there a common atheist hermeneutic of the Bible? That is, do many atheists follow a distinctive (even if informal) set of principles or methods when interpreting a passage like Matthew 24:29?

That's an interesting and insightful question.

I'm thinking about this and trying to make a list of principles that I apply to the Bible. As stated, these specifically apply to the New Testament, but I try to apply the broader principles to the Old Testament, as well.

• There's no such thing as magic. Authors weren't supernaturally prevented from being wrong or having theological opinions that conflict with each other or later theologies. Successful prophecies are good guesses, hindsight, or creative reinterpretation by readers.
• The words in a story, even those attributed to a character, are those of the author. They may have been informed by a real event, but it's sloppy to assume that "Mark wrote that Jesus said" and "Jesus said" mean the same thing.
• The authors were literate. They were familiar with the kinds of literature that other educated, Jewish, Greek-speaking inhabitants of the Roman Empire would be familiar with.
• The authors intended their audiences to understand what they wrote. While there are certainly ambiguities in the text, I assume that the authors either didn't intend their writing to be a puzzle or tried to clue the reader in when they did.

Those are the ones I thought of, but I'd bet there are more that I didn't as well as some that I wouldn't be aware of until someone points them out.

I know these aren't shared by most Christians, but are they shared by other atheists? I'd be curious to know.

2. Is there a common Christology assumed by many atheists? That is, when atheists assail the divinity of Christ, are they often critiquing a distinctive conception of Christ's nature?

I'm going to guess that most atheists make the same error that most Christians do in thinking that there's a common Christology in the first place. In my experience, most Christians think that there's a single "Christian" theology in general because that's how most churches present things. Most atheists derive their views about theology from other Christians and part of that view is often that the local (local church, local community, whatever) view is the universal "Christian" view and, furthermore, is self-evident.

3. Do either of those distinctive views correspond to orthodox Christian interpretations of the Bible and the divinity of Christ? If not, then are atheist critiques of the Bible and the divinity of Christ properly critiques of Christianity, or are they something else?

No more than any other stridently asserted theological position is "properly" Christian. I would claim that Jagella's argument about Matthew is neither the view of the author nor universal among modern Christians, but it's not a straw man, either. A common combination of theological views is that the Bible is verbally inerrant and that Jesus-as-God knew everything that God the Father knows. That many orthodox Christians disagree is hardly news, however. If Jagella isn't properly describing Christianity, it's only because there's no single Christianity to describe.

[DavidLeon]

In an earlier thread from last year, Jagella (R.I.P.) argued that Matthew 24:29 demonstrates that Jesus had a pre-scientific understanding of the stars and that this somehow belies Christian claims about Jesus' divinity.

Arguments like this are always predicated on a number of unstated (and sometimes unexamined) assumptions. And yet, what stands out to me about this particular example is precisely how common it is: The peculiar assumptions underlying this argument appear to underly many, if not most, atheist critiques of the Bible and the divinity of Christ on this site.

Which got me wondering:

1. Is there a common atheist hermeneutic of the Bible? That is, do many atheists follow a distinctive (even if informal) set of principles or methods when interpreting a passage like Matthew 24:29?

2. Is there a common Christology assumed by many atheists? That is, when atheists assail the divinity of Christ, are they often critiquing a distinctive conception of Christ's nature?

3. Do either of those distinctive views correspond to orthodox Christian interpretations of the Bible and the divinity of Christ? If not, then are atheist critiques of the Bible and the divinity of Christ properly critiques of Christianity, or are they something else?

Interesting. What about the divinity of Isaiah or Ezekiel? (Isaiah 13:10; Ezekiel 32:7) Or ... better yet, investigate what stars tend to represent throughout scripture. Maybe how celestial references of the sun, moon and stars often represent political and social upheaval. Those systems existing in the past given those Biblical references suffered great political and social upheaval. If the Bible should happen to indicate that God's kingdom will remove and replace all other kingdoms then you would probably expect the book of Revelation to include those very same references. Who's the sun? Who's the moon? Who's the stars?

Then investigate the divinity of Moses and Tammuz and the Judges of Israel. (Psalm 82:1, 6; John 10:34-35; Exodus 4:16; 7:1; Ezekiel 8:14)

[unknown soldier]

That's an odd non-sequitur. It was, after all, quite easy to "out-argue" Jagella.

Then it's odd that you dug up an old post in which you argued with Jagella. If you out-argued him then, then are you just gloating now over your presumed victory?

It seems odd to me that the presumed creator of the cosmos spoke of that cosmos as if he knew nothing about the true nature of the stars.

Here is where you start making assumptions.

If I make assumptions about the Bible, it is because I must make assumptions. There are no hard facts to support almost everything the Bible claims. That is the Bible-believers' problem, not mine.

The fist concerns the nature of Christ. This would only be "odd" if you assume a particular view of how Jesus is divine. Why did you choose to critique that particular Christology and not another?

My chosen "Christology" is that if Jesus was divine, then he should have known what he was talking about. Are there Christologies in which Christ didn't know what he was talking about?

The second assumption concerns your literal interpretation of this passage from Matthew.

I can interpret a passage metaphorically, but to do so I look for mataphors. I see no metaphors in Matthew 24:29.

...when you read ancient Jewish poetry, such as the Psalms, do you interpret them literally?

Most of the Psalms use apparent metaphors, but to make the judgment that some passage in the Psalms is metaphorical, I'd need to consider it in isolation. It's important to understand that much of the Psalms is meant to be taken literally. So to lump all the Psalms together as literal or figurative will result in errant interpretation.

...when reading an ancient Jewish apocalyptic work, like Daniel or Revelation, do you interpret the imagery there literally?

Again, we need to consider those works verse-by-verse to determine what is to be taken literally and what is merely metaphor.

I asked if there is a "common" way in which atheists interpret the Bible or conceive of the divinity of Christ.

I don't know the answer to that question. I haven't polled atheists to ask them. But for now, I would again say no, there is no "common" way in which atheists interpret the Bible.

...what I'm noting here is that, when atheists on this site are critiquing the divinity of Christ, most seem to be critiquing a particular conception of Christ's divinity.

I can't speak for all the atheists on this site. You might wish to poll them.

Is there then a common atheist view of what the doctrine of the divinity of Christ entails?

I think it's safe to say that many atheists, myself included, see divinity as being what parts of the Bible say about God and what Christian theologians say about Christ. Since Christ was supposed to be a perfect God incarnate, then I expect him to get his cosmology right.

So, if an atheist critiques the belief that Jesus actually survived the crucifixion and lived out the remainder of his life in India, that is a "critique of Christ," but is that properly a critique of Christianity?

What Christ is is only limited by the believer's imagination, is it not?

Anyway, when I speak of Christ, I speak of the "Gospel Christ" who died on the cross after having probably lived his whole life in Israel if he lived at all.

...if you are critiquing a view of Christ that is not held by Christians are you actually critique Christianity?

Which Christians are you referring to? I think it's safe to say that almost all Christians believe Jesus was never wrong. As a result, I generally assume that Christ was supposed to be right about everything he said.

Before I close, allow me to make two important observations. The first observation is that it appears that you lump large parts of the Bible together or even the entire Bible together when considering interpretation. The Bible is way too diverse to be sensibly interpreted so broadly. It is much more sensible to interpret small parts of the Bible.

My second observation is that when interpreting parts of the Bible, you should interpret it for what it says rather than what you want it to say. If Christ made a remark that is clearly wrong if taken literally, then it's not proper to save your faith by interpreting what Christ said figuratively!

[DavidLeon]

My chosen "Christology" is that if Jesus was divine, then he should have known what he was talking about. Are there Christologies in which Christ didn't know what he was talking about?

Apparently yours. Why exclude all other theologies?

I can interpret a passage metaphorically, but to do so I look for mataphors. I see no metaphors in Matthew 24:29.

He's talking about signs of his presence. You think we would need a sign that stars are falling from the heavens? What power is he referring to? Why would the tribes all beat themselves if the son of man appears while the stars are falling? Shouldn't that be comforting? Sure raises a lot of questions, don't it?

Probably not to an atheists making assumptions, huh?

Most of the Psalms use apparent metaphors, but to make the judgment that some passage in the Psalms is metaphorical, I'd need to consider it in isolation. It's important to understand that much of the Psalms is meant to be taken literally. So to lump all the Psalms together as literal or figurative will result in errant interpretation.

Why? Why isolated and why errant?

Again, we need to consider those works verse-by-verse to determine what is to be taken literally and what is merely metaphor.

I agree. Let's start with Genesis

I don't know the answer to that question. I haven't polled atheists to ask them. But for now, I would again say no, there is no "common" way in which atheists interpret the Bible.

Well, at least the Christologies have that in common. Divinity. What a joke. Almost completely meaningless term.

I think it's safe to say that many atheists, myself included, see divinity as being what parts of the Bible say about God and what Christian theologians say about Christ. Since Christ was supposed to be a perfect God incarnate, then I expect him to get his cosmology right.

We'd might as well stop listening to the atheists and theists then 'cause they don't seem to be clearing up any confusion on God's behalf. If only we had some collection of books which claimed to be from God ... where did this God concept come from anyway?

What Christ is is only limited by the believer's imagination, is it not?

Anyway, when I speak of Christ, I speak of the "Gospel Christ" who died on the cross after having probably lived his whole life in Israel if he lived at all.

On the cross? What do you base that upon? What do you think about the Greek word xylon?

Which Christians are you referring to? I think it's safe to say that almost all Christians believe Jesus was never wrong. As a result, I generally assume that Christ was supposed to be right about everything he said.

Before I close, allow me to make two important observations. The first observation is that it appears that you lump large parts of the Bible together or even the entire Bible together when considering interpretation. The Bible is way too diverse to be sensibly interpreted so broadly. It is much more sensible to interpret small parts of the Bible.

Cherry pickin'? You might want to rethink that. It would be a great deal easier to demonstrate disharmony.

My second observation is that when interpreting parts of the Bible, you should interpret it for what it says rather than what you want it to say. If Christ made a remark that is clearly wrong if taken literally, then it's not proper to save your faith by interpreting what Christ said figuratively!

So you can say Jesus thought stars were going to literally fall from the sky?

Atheists are so obvious. Takes the fun out of it.

[unknown soldier]

Why exclude all other theologies?

Theologies are a dime a dozen. Anybody can make up a theology, and Christians often do resulting in a confusing mess. So I try to stick with the most commonly believed Christian theology.

He's talking about signs of his presence.

In Matthew 24:29 Christ is portrayed by the gospel writer as making predictions regarding "the end of the world." Those signs he speaks of are to herald his return. Since we know stars cannot fall from the sky, Christ will never return.

Sorry about that!

You think we would need a sign that stars are falling from the heavens?

No. Why would we need such a "sign"? If the stars did fall from the sky, then that is the sign we are to look for.

Anyway, that's a very strange question.

What power is he referring to?

I don't know. The passage mentions "powers of heaven" not "power."

Why would the tribes all beat themselves if the son of man appears while the stars are falling?

I'd say they beat themselves because Christ is scary.

Shouldn't that be comforting?

I suppose for those Christ is about to waste, they are not comforted by him.

Sure raises a lot of questions, don't it?

Yes, and you are asking way too many irrelevant questions.

Why? Why isolated and why errant?

Obviously it makes little sense to try to interpret the Bible as a whole due to its sheer bulk and diverse theologies. Like a meal, you need to judge each part to see what each part is like.

... where did this God concept come from anyway?

People in the Middle East in approximately 1,000 BCE made up the God that Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in.

On the cross?

Yes. You are evidently unaware that Christ is believed to have died on across.

What do you base that upon?

The New Testament. You may wish to read it sometime.

What do you think about the Greek word xylon?

I don't know. What about it?

Cherry pickin'?

I didn't cherry pick. Cherry picking is the practice of picking out evidence that supports a favored belief whole ignoring the rest. I'm picking out Bible passages to exam them--not to choose them as evidence for what I want to believe.

So you can say Jesus thought stars were going to literally fall from the sky?

Let's take a look at Matthew 24:29 (NRSV):

Immediately after the suffering of those days

the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from heaven,
and the powers of heaven will be shaken.

What is it about "the stars will fall from heaven" that you don't understand? Yes, it appears that Christ was ignorant of the world that he is believed to have created. Like anybody else in his time and place, he knew little about the universe.

It's not hopeless by any means, however. In typical apologetics fashion, you can interpret "stars" in this passage as something different from the common understanding of stars. That way you can smooth over Christ's obvious ignorance and maybe even assure some Christians tortured by doubt that their faith is true despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[Bust Nak]

I can only answer for myself.

1. Is there a common atheist hermeneutic of the Bible? That is, do many atheists follow a distinctive (even if informal) set of principles or methods when interpreting a passage like Matthew 24:29?

Read it as I would any other holy book, assuming the authors did not intend it as a work of fiction.

2. Is there a common Christology assumed by many atheists? That is, when atheists assail the divinity of Christ, are they often critiquing a distinctive conception of Christ's nature?

Take mainstream Catholic teaching, remove Mary, mother of God stuff, remove Papal authority. That's my working assumption of what Christianity is, which would cover Christology.

3. Do either of those distinctive views correspond to orthodox Christian interpretations of the Bible and the divinity of Christ?

You tell me. Do you read the Bible with the presumption that it's divine, or perhaps from a neutral position?

If not, then are atheist critiques of the Bible and the divinity of Christ properly critiques of Christianity, or are they something else?

Critique on Christians being predisposed to believing the Bible? I don't know, I tend to stay away specific debate on the Bible.

[DavidLeon]

Theologies are a dime a dozen. Anybody can make up a theology, and Christians often do resulting in a confusing mess. So I try to stick with the most commonly believed Christian theology.

Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief. You are arguing against tradition. Seems pointless to me and most likely a personal ideological vendetta. Not that there is anything wrong with that unless you start to muddy that with some sense of reality outside of what it actually is. If traditional Christian theology "claims" the soul is immortal you have to chase down what that is based upon. Socrates. You would save yourself the confusion of arguing against Christian tradition based upon Greek philosophy and the ridiculous position that puts you in by just reading Ezekiel 18:4 and Matthew 10:28.

Unless of course ... a strictly Biblical argument would weaken your position and compromise your personal ideological vendetta. Would you by any chance happen to be a former Christian traditionalist, by any chance?

In Matthew 24:29 Christ is portrayed by the gospel writer as making predictions regarding "the end of the world." Those signs he speaks of are to herald his return. Since we know stars cannot fall from the sky, Christ will never return.

Sorry about that!

Uh-huh.

The traditional Christian theology is the reference to falling stars are metaphoric. If you are going to stick to the most commonly believed Christian theology you are wrong in just deviating from it with a disingenuous argument. If you are going to argue against Christian theology argue that Jesus was never meant to return in the first place. That's what I would do.

Research the Greek word parousia.

From a Biblical perspective stars were used in a metaphoric sense to describe social and political upheaval. A new government, a new people, a new environment. A new heaven and a new earth. The celestial phenomenon in question was used in the so called OT to describe the destruction of Jerusalem. And again, when God's kingdom removes Satan's system i.e. the world, the kingdoms he tempted Christ with, and replaces it with his own.

Why would we need such a "sign"? If the stars did fall from the sky, then that is the sign we are to look for.

If the stars were literally falling from the sky, as either you or one of your contemporaries noted, their being for the most part bigger than the earth, we wouldn't need a sign from Jesus, but of course your argument is hinged exclusively upon a literal celestial event which is contrary to the common Christian theology you "claim" from the start to call into question. Your argument is either uninformed or dishonest. I would use the term uninformed and unfair.

Anyway, that's a very strange question.

Is it? Falling stars a sign of something. His presence. Presence in what form? Irrelevant? I don't think so but it would save me time, cut to the chase. WHAT"S HE TALKING ABOUT? Is he saying more or less the sky is falling or is he saying he will be destroying the world and setting up God's kingdom, without, mind you, being physically present because I doubt the man Jesus hung upon the stake could hold up a falling star. See the time you waste in arguing from the perspective of the common Christian theology?

What power is he referring to?

I don't know. The passage mentions "powers of heaven" not "power."

[Sigh] Fair enough then, what are the "powers of heaven?" In a literal sense the physical heavens would include the sun, moon and stars. It would also include the planet Earth, but not from our perspective in a literal sense. So what is a metaphoric application? Arrangement or adornment. The Greek word kosmos from which is derived the English word cosmos and cosmetics. Who's arrangement or adornment is shaken and why?

Why would the tribes all beat themselves if the son of man appears while the stars are falling?

I'd say they beat themselves because Christ is scary.

More scary than stars falling?

Shouldn't that be comforting?

I suppose for those Christ is about to waste, they are not comforted by him.

Now we're getting somewhere!

Sure raises a lot of questions, don't it?

Yes, and you are asking way too many irrelevant questions.

Because you are asking too few relevant questions.

Why? Why isolated and why errant?

Obviously it makes little sense to try to interpret the Bible as a whole due to its sheer bulk and diverse theologies. Like a meal, you need to judge each part to see what each part is like.

You need to see what each part is like by comparing it to the whole. What's that expression? Can't see the forest for the trees.

... where did this God concept come from anyway?

People in the Middle East in approximately 1,000 BCE made up the God that Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in.

Prove it.

On the cross?

Yes. You are evidently unaware that Christ is believed to have died on across.

What do you base that upon?

The New Testament. You may wish to read it sometime.

What do you think about the Greek word xylon?

I don't know. What about it?

I took your advice to read "The New Testament," which, by the way doesn't exist as such, so I read the Christian Greek scriptures, prior to your having gave that advice and it turns out the word xylon is a word meaning single upright pole. Tree. It is "believed" that Jesus died on a Roman phallic symbol, the crux or stauros (which can mean either a single upright stake or any of a number of designs including X, T, t and others) but that belief is incorrect because the word xylon can't mean anything but a single upright stake. Pole. Tree. This is evident by the Greek translation of the Hebrew Ezra 6:1.

I've told you about that Christian theology!

Cherry pickin'?

I didn't cherry pick. Cherry picking is the practice of picking out evidence that supports a favored belief whole ignoring the rest. I'm picking out Bible passages to exam them--not to choose them as evidence for what I want to believe.

[Laughs] Oh, my mistake.

So you can say Jesus thought stars were going to literally fall from the sky?

Let's take a look at Matthew 24:29 (NRSV):

Immediately after the suffering of those days

the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from heaven,
and the powers of heaven will be shaken.

What is it about "the stars will fall from heaven" that you don't understand? Yes, it appears that Christ was ignorant of the world that he is believed to have created. Like anybody else in his time and place, he knew little about the universe.

No, like most people in your time and place you know little about his. Like the metaphoric use of the aforementioned celestial phenomenon. Since these alleged primitive and superstitious people hadn't seen any literal stars falling it's a safe assumption that they didn't refer to it literally. If I'm wrong show me a passage which is obviously referring to the falling of stars in a literal sense, like, let's say, [sarcasim]wishing upon a falling star[/sarcasm]? Or more realistically physical literal damage caused by a falling star.

Judges 5:20 has the stars fighting against Sisera, Joseph's brothers were stars, so were Jesus, Satan and Nebuchadnezzar.

It's not hopeless by any means, however.

If you say so.

In typical apologetics fashion, you can interpret "stars" in this passage as something different from the common understanding of stars.

Who's common understanding of stars? Because we aren't referencing the common understanding - at least I'm not. Besides, common understanding is at best a misnomer and at the least a contradiction in terms. Consider "falling stars" mentioned earlier. I'll say it again, Jesus is using the metaphor common to the Jews of his time. You are not.

That way you can smooth over Christ's obvious ignorance and maybe even assure some Christians tortured by doubt that their faith is true despite all the evidence to the contrary.

If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. What you are trying to smooth over is your own obvious ignorance and maybe even convince some Christians tortured by doubt that their faith is false despite all the "evidence" to the contrary.

Confirmation bias.