Jesus never existed?

[William Wallace]

But that's all your interpretation.  That's not the Bible speaking for itself.

And what about things that the Bible gets wrong?  Or where it contradicts itself?  Obviously the Bible could not speak for itself in those situations.

Never seen a contradiction that held water.    And yes...I've seen all the supposed examples.   Some of them laughable. 

I've studied the Bible thoroughly...and I have *never* seen a contradiction.     

Well, a reasonably well known one, that isn't even an issue of interpretation/meaning of language, is the year of Jesus' birth.  Matthew puts it during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE.  Luke puts it during the Roman census of 6 CE.  So there's at least a ten year gap in between the dates offered by the two accounts.  Historians lean towards Matthew's account.  It's thought that Luke's inclusion of the census was to provide a reason for Mary and Joseph to have been in Bethlehem for Jesus' birth rather than Nazareth.

Are you familiar with any of the attempts to Harmonize the birth narratives? If so, what do you think of them?

Yes.  I think it's a load of crap.  The two separate gospels were written by two sets of people not present at the actual events, and were probably just filling in backstory based on prophecy and of truths or half-truths.  There's nothing to harmonize.  It's as pointless as trying to harmonize the two genealogies of Jesus.

I didn't ask you for an example of circular reasoning.

[Super Dude]

I will add that the idea of any personal interpretation on *my* part goes against every fiber of my being.   

The Bible does speak for itself.     In other words, if I *want* a scripture to mean 1 thing, but then another scripture contradicts MY interpretation of the first scripture...then *I* am wrong.   I have to adjust my viewpoint.   Only in that way can the Bible speak for itself.   If I find something new in scripture that contradicts my POV or my interpretation...then *I* am the one that has to change.   Because this is God's POV....not mine. 

For instance, I might want to believe that God will save *everyone*...as some scriptures seem to insinuate.  But others scriptures make it clear that not everyone will be.   You do a little digging into all scriptures on the subject....*everything* that the Bible has to say on the matter...and a bigger picture becomes clear.  The *offer* to be saved is open to everyone.   But not everyone will accept it.     This is not what I wanted to hear...but it is what it says.    I've had friends spin some of these scriptures in a way that would suit more to some of my personal viewpoints...but that personal viewpoint contradicts other parts of God's word.   The only interpretation, is the one that harmonizes all parts.

I heard someone once say, "The truth will set you free....but it will piss you off first."   That was my experience.

Y'know, by definition, if the way in which you react to the Bible is to take it as it is, that's still an interpretation. Your interpretation. It just means that your interpretation is that the Bible is religious scripture that is inerrant and that is to be taken literally.

[rumborak]

It's not too difficult to find "sources" online who please the pious reader's desire for a perfectly coherent Bible. But, I would hope that you at least admit out of intellectual honesty that, without the gospel's claims otherwise, there is almost no reason to assume that Quirinius was governor more than once.

rumborak

You can be such a dick sometimes -- and you're wrong. If Quirinius actually served twice, we should want to know, right?

I might be a dick about it, but I have the impression I'm in good company. 

What part is "dickish" about saying that the Roman records suggest Quirinius was governor only once? Is it dickish to suggest that without the Bible nobody would even raise an eyebrow about the statement that Quirinius was governor once?

And are you even familiar with any historian who defends the harmonization of the birth narratives? If you aren't, I don't think you should dismiss their work out of hand.

We've discussed time and again the attempts, the wild theories. And they are wild theories, like Quirinius being governor a second time, Jesus's parents having made crazy excursions through Egypt etc etc.
It takes a believer to believe them all.

rumborak

[bosk1]

I've studied the Bible thoroughly...and I have *never* seen a contradiction.     

Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about these supposed "contradictions."  When GP and others have brought them up in the past, they've been thoroughly debunked.  But the response is always the same:  fingers in ears, shouting, "no, no, no!   It has to be a contradiction!"

[Scheavo]

So, does anyone have non Biblical evidence for Jesus also being called Immanuel?

[bosk1]

I don't think so.  Why?

[Scheavo]

Is that one of the Prophecies he fulfilled?

[bosk1]

That's already been answered.

[yeshaberto]

So, does anyone have non Biblical evidence for Jesus also being called Immanuel?

not sure why we would expect non-biblical evidence of Jesus being called Immanuel.  It wasn't a name but a title.  the new testament is full of dozens of titles of Jesus.  I would venture to guess that there were many rabbi's who wrote regarding the passage in Isaiah 7:14 and applied it to the messiah.

[Scheavo]

Yes.  And he was.  (Matthew 1:22-24)

So the only evidence that this prophecy was fulfilled, is basically saying, "Oh ya, he was also called Emmanuel."

Am I getting this right? Becuase it sounds a lot like that doomsday guy, who, whenever the world doesn't end when he says it will, goes, "Oh, I did the math wrong, it's 6 months from now!" It's justification after the fact, it's forcing the story to fit the prophecies, but in a shockingly shallow and rather clumsy manner.

It wouldn't even be a problem, but you're so adamant that there's nothing wrong, at all, in the Bible, and basically ignore this. If you didn't hold that position, I would consider it such a minor, and irrelevant point, because it in no way important to your theological beliefs.

[GuineaPig]

I've studied the Bible thoroughly...and I have *never* seen a contradiction.     

Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about these supposed "contradictions."  When GP and others have brought them up in the past, they've been thoroughly debunked.  But the response is always the same:  fingers in ears, shouting, "no, no, no!   It has to be a contradiction!"

Yes, they've been so thoroughly debunked that it's the mainstream academic opinion.  Anyone who doesn't buy into the theories of fringe apologetics are the close-minded ones. 

I am curious, though: how do people think themselves around cut-and-dry stuff like Jericho not being inhabited when Joshua supposedly captured it?  Or does that fall back on the "radioactive dating is all a lie" argument?

[bosk1]

Yes.  And he was.  (Matthew 1:22-24)

So the only evidence that this prophecy was fulfilled, is basically saying, "Oh ya, he was also called Emmanuel."

Am I getting this right? Becuase it sounds a lot like that doomsday guy, who, whenever the world doesn't end when he says it will, goes, "Oh, I did the math wrong, it's 6 months from now!" It's justification after the fact, it's forcing the story to fit the prophecies, but in a shockingly shallow and rather clumsy manner.

It wouldn't even be a problem, but you're so adamant that there's nothing wrong, at all, in the Bible, and basically ignore this. If you didn't hold that position, I would consider it such a minor, and irrelevant point, because it in no way important to your theological beliefs.

Actually, it's the exact opposite of any of those doomsday guys.  In those cases, they say, "oops, I made a mistake.  The prophecy wasn't fullfilled yet.  But this next time, for sure!"    With the Matthew passage, it is the opposite.  It is, "here is the prophecy, and here is exactly how it was fulfilled."

But I understand your general point, which is, how do we know Matthew 1:22-24 wasn't intentionally made up and inserted after the fact to make it look like a prophecy was fulfilled when in fact nothing of the sort actually happened in real life?  And that's an absolutely fair point.  A few points in response.  First, by itself, it isn't a strong example.  But it wasn't raised as a point in support of Biblical historicity.  Rumborak raised it as a counterargument, after which, I explained where he was incorrect.  Second, while it doesn't prove anything by itself, there are so many examples of fulfilled prophecy that it becomes impossible to ignore or explain away all of them.  In addition to being far too numerous, many are far too specific in terms of naming actual persons, places, and timeframes that, given that they were known during the time eyewitnesses were still alive, it would have been a simple matter to debunk at least some of them if they were not in fact true.

[rumborak]

not sure why we would expect non-biblical evidence of Jesus being called Immanuel.  It wasn't a name but a title.

How is Immanuel (God with us) a title? Is Jesus (Lord is salvation) a title too?
It seems rather arbitrary (and of course awfully convenient) to relegate a name to a title. Jesus' name was Jesus, not Immanuel.

I think it's reasonably obvious. The writer of Matthew tried to tie Jesus to the prophecy, and had to overcome the obstacle that everybody knew Jesus' name to be Jesus. Nobody had ever called him anything different, as that was his name. So, enter angels who proclaim the name of the OT prophecy to Mary and Joseph.
It's the same really with the "Jesus of Nazareth" business. Everybody knew Jesus was from Nazareth, but Nazareth isn't Bethlehem, where OT prophecy said the Messiah would come from. So, Jesus' parents make a "detour" according to the gospels.
Or another one, the differing genealogy of Jesus. One wants to tie him to David, the other to Adam.

EDIT: I should mention that this post was dickish, ignorant and too "Jesus Seminar"-ish, as usual.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Nah.  Being dickish and being wrong are not necessarily the same thing.

[yeshaberto]

not sure why we would expect non-biblical evidence of Jesus being called Immanuel.  It wasn't a name but a title.

How is Immanuel (God with us) a title? Is Jesus (Lord is salvation) a title too?
It seems rather arbitrary (and of course awfully convenient) to relegate a name to a title. Jesus' name was Jesus, not Immanuel.

I think it's reasonably obvious. The writer of Matthew tried to tie Jesus to the prophecy, and had to overcome the obstacle that everybody knew Jesus' name to be Jesus. Nobody had ever called him anything different, as that was his name. So, enter angels who proclaim the name of the OT prophecy to Mary and Joseph.
It's the same really with the "Jesus of Nazareth" business. Everybody knew Jesus was from Nazareth, but Nazareth isn't Bethlehem, where OT prophecy said the Messiah would come from. So, Jesus' parents make a "detour" according to the gospels.
Or another one, the differing genealogy of Jesus. One wants to tie him to David, the other to Adam.

EDIT: I should mention that this post was dickish, ignorant and too "Jesus Seminar"-ish, as usual.

rumborak

as I mentioned earlier, Jer 23:6 is another example where the messiah is given a "name" where it is obviously a title. 

[jammindude]

I will add that the idea of any personal interpretation on *my* part goes against every fiber of my being.   

The Bible does speak for itself.     In other words, if I *want* a scripture to mean 1 thing, but then another scripture contradicts MY interpretation of the first scripture...then *I* am wrong.   I have to adjust my viewpoint.   Only in that way can the Bible speak for itself.   If I find something new in scripture that contradicts my POV or my interpretation...then *I* am the one that has to change.   Because this is God's POV....not mine. 

For instance, I might want to believe that God will save *everyone*...as some scriptures seem to insinuate.  But others scriptures make it clear that not everyone will be.   You do a little digging into all scriptures on the subject....*everything* that the Bible has to say on the matter...and a bigger picture becomes clear.  The *offer* to be saved is open to everyone.   But not everyone will accept it.     This is not what I wanted to hear...but it is what it says.    I've had friends spin some of these scriptures in a way that would suit more to some of my personal viewpoints...but that personal viewpoint contradicts other parts of God's word.   The only interpretation, is the one that harmonizes all parts.

I heard someone once say, "The truth will set you free....but it will piss you off first."   That was my experience.

Y'know, by definition, if the way in which you react to the Bible is to take it as it is, that's still an interpretation. Your interpretation. It just means that your interpretation is that the Bible is religious scripture that is inerrant and that is to be taken literally.

Well come on....that's pretty broad isn't it?  Couldn't you really...by definition...say that about just about anything?   Go back to what I said about the bank robbery.  *EVERYONE* has their own interpretation about ANYTHING.   People witness the exact same event and have completely different stories....it gets even harder when there are no witnesses. 

I guess you could say that there are some things that are hard to quantify...except to say "patterns".   There are patterns in life, the universe and everything.   My observation (and research...because I truly believe "blind faith" is not only stupid, but dangerous) is that The Bible fits into the pattern of everything around us.  Science is fascinating...but it's theories don't always fit the pattern.     

[hefdaddy42]

You may say it is broad, but it is still accurate. 

And there are plenty of contradictions in the Bible.  But it is the interpretation of some people that they aren't really contradictions.  But there they remain.

[jammindude]

You may say it is broad, but it is still accurate. 

And there are plenty of contradictions in the Bible.  But it is the interpretation of some people that they aren't really contradictions.  But there they remain.

I'm sorry...but there is just not.   I can agree to disagree.   But to simply state that "This is fact because *my* sources say so" is nothing short of ridiculous. 

If you state that in your opinion, after looking at both sides of the argument, you felt that one side seemed to carry more validity to your own personal values...then fine.  I can respect that. 

But I'm not going to go on and on about it.   If you have made up your mind already that there *are* contradictions...and you feel you've heard all the arguments, and it's not going to sway you...then fine.  I can respect that too.   But again, it simply means we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.   

[William Wallace]

It's not too difficult to find "sources" online who please the pious reader's desire for a perfectly coherent Bible. But, I would hope that you at least admit out of intellectual honesty that, without the gospel's claims otherwise, there is almost no reason to assume that Quirinius was governor more than once.

rumborak

You can be such a dick sometimes -- and you're wrong. If Quirinius actually served twice, we should want to know, right?

I might be a dick about it, but I have the impression I'm in good company. 

rumborak

Yeah, yeah. Fair enough. I overreacted a bit. My apologies. I think what irritated me was your outright dismissal of the possibility, and the assumption that the harmonization was invented wholesale to spare Christians the pain of knowing that the Bible contradicts itself. Motivations can't discredit arguments by themselves. But time and time again, you put your "fingers in ears, shouting, "no, no, no!   It has to be a contradiction!" as bosk put it.

The argument comes from two biblical scholars whose work has passed peer review. But you're so convinced that the explanation is irrational you can't even consider the evidence in support.

[Super Dude]

to simply state that "This is fact because *my* sources say so" is nothing short of ridiculous.

You're kinda doing that too, ya know.

[jammindude]

to simply state that "This is fact because *my* sources say so" is nothing short of ridiculous.

You're kinda doing that too, ya know.

To be fair, I also said that I had done alot of research and come to my own conclusions....not out of "blind faith" (which I despise) but out of examination of the evidence.   Based on my research, I feel I have established what I believe to be facts.   If, based on your research, you have established what you believe to be facts, I can respect that.   

...and again, we would simply have to agree to disagree.   But I don't appreciate the insinuation that my conclusions do not have merit.    I have seen the evidence of your side of the argument.   I can actually see how one could be drawn to your conclusion...but I don't share it. 

[William Wallace]

Since this has turned into the latest "why the Bible sux" thread, here are a few things skeptics have in common with the raisin cakes who believe the King James Bible is the only reliable translation.

[hefdaddy42]

You may say it is broad, but it is still accurate. 

And there are plenty of contradictions in the Bible.  But it is the interpretation of some people that they aren't really contradictions.  But there they remain.

I'm sorry...but there is just not.   I can agree to disagree.   But to simply state that "This is fact because *my* sources say so" is nothing short of ridiculous. 

If you state that in your opinion, after looking at both sides of the argument, you felt that one side seemed to carry more validity to your own personal values...then fine.  I can respect that. 

But I'm not going to go on and on about it.   If you have made up your mind already that there *are* contradictions...and you feel you've heard all the arguments, and it's not going to sway you...then fine.  I can respect that too.   But again, it simply means we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

I've done years and years of research too.  Believe what you want.  But I wouldn't say that it is my OPINION that there are contradictions (or other problems) in the text of the Bible.  I would say I am letting the text speak for itself.  To see these contradictions and to somehow go to great lengths to try to explain why they AREN'T contradictions is an opinion, or an interpretation, or what have you.

But if you don't want to have a discussion and just want to "agree to disagree" then let's just drop this entire line of posting.

[ehra]

Yeah, last night as I was falling asleep (yeah, some nights I think about discussions I've read over the internet. I'm terrible) I was wondering how you reconcile "letting the bible speak for itself" and using outside information to explain potential contradictions.

[jammindude]

Yeah, last night as I was falling asleep (yeah, some nights I think about discussions I've read over the internet. I'm terrible) I was wondering how you reconcile "letting the bible speak for itself" and using outside information to explain potential contradictions.

Everything *I* need, I find in the Bible. 

Sadly, there are many times that I run into "guilty until proven innocent" mentalities.   In those cases, it is sometimes nice to have outside sources backing up your claim.  It is usually for the benefit of the skeptic, who (often) will not look to internal evidence.    But often...not even that will convince people.    There are more than a few people for whom credentials only apply to those who agree with them. 

Life itself has taught me quite a bit about how a person can say one thing at one time...another thing later that seems to contradict...only to get an explanation later that harmonizes the two comments in a way that hadn't occurred to you.  The two factual statements that you need are still directly from the source...you don't *need* anything else except the ability be open minded to the explanation. 

[GuineaPig]

"Open minded" is an interesting way to describe doublethink.

[bosk1]

Consider yourself warned for personal attacks, GP. 

[rumborak]

Hef is pretty dead on though. The contradictions are there, at least on the surface. Whether the reader/student finds the harmonization efforts convincing or not is a question of interpretation then. Fact of the matter is, Jesus' name wasn't Immanuel, despite the prophecy saying so. Whether you accept the angel's proclamation, or rather to the point, whether you accept that the writer of Matthew (who felt it necessary to explain to the reader that "Immanuel" means XYZ to drive the point home) is to be believed, is personal interpretation. Without faith, it's hard to believe.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

Yes.  And he was.  (Matthew 1:22-24)

So the only evidence that this prophecy was fulfilled, is basically saying, "Oh ya, he was also called Emmanuel."

Am I getting this right? Becuase it sounds a lot like that doomsday guy, who, whenever the world doesn't end when he says it will, goes, "Oh, I did the math wrong, it's 6 months from now!" It's justification after the fact, it's forcing the story to fit the prophecies, but in a shockingly shallow and rather clumsy manner.

It wouldn't even be a problem, but you're so adamant that there's nothing wrong, at all, in the Bible, and basically ignore this. If you didn't hold that position, I would consider it such a minor, and irrelevant point, because it in no way important to your theological beliefs.

Actually, it's the exact opposite of any of those doomsday guys.  In those cases, they say, "oops, I made a mistake.  The prophecy wasn't fullfilled yet.  But this next time, for sure!"    With the Matthew passage, it is the opposite.  It is, "here is the prophecy, and here is exactly how it was fulfilled."

Cept both are based basically upon faith that the Bible is inerrant. You say that the prophecy was fulfilled, because it is in the Bible, which can't be wrong. But at the same time, you're saying this is one of the reasons why the Bible is inerrant. And as I said, it's only an issue for me, becuase you seem to be so convinced that the Bible is inerrant.

Since this has turned into the latest "why the Bible sux" thread, here are a few things skeptics have in common with the raisin cakes who believe the King James Bible is the only reliable translation.

As someone who grew up with pretty much no religion in my life, I can say, that nothing in that page relates at all to myself. The more you post the kind of things like the above, though, the more I think you ultimately weaken the foundation you try to set up for yourself. The more "unliteral" the Bible becomes, the bigger the door of interpretation becomes, and the more it just becomes the work of a great thinker, of which there have been many through out history.

The more you try to look at the Bible in context, the more you're doing what I think you should be doing, but still attributing it to a deity. It's also the root for why I think there are going to be translation issues, and interpretation issues, in reading the Bible. Which, you'll notice, is nothing like how you think it is.

[jammindude]

The best illustration I can come up with is this.

To me...proof of the Bible's inspiration is a lot like the OJ trial. 

To me, the cloud of evidence that it *IS* inspired of God and inerrant is simply too great to ignore.   

Think about the OJ trial for a second.   To me, the overwhelming evidence that OJ was involved somehow is immense and insurmountable.  However...if you take a really talented lawyer...go through all the individual pieces bit by bit and go over them with a fine toothed comb with fancy talk until the individual piece falls apart...then move on to the next piece of evidence and do the exact same thing..etc..etc...etc...  You are eventually left with no evidence left.   

BUT!!!  What was the goal of OJ's lawyers?   Was the goal of those lawyers to find the truth?  Or free their client?? 

If you were to study all the arguments of OJ's lawyers...you might end up convinced that OJ had nothing to do with his wife's death.   But anyone who takes a step back to look at *ALL* the evidence as a collective...*knows* that he was SOMEHOW involved.  Common sense takes over and you are just forced to admit that there is too much evidence surrounding the event and OJ specifically.   The more excuses, the more flimsy the argument becomes.   

Now whether you think OJ was innocent or not essentially comes down to which arguments YOU find to be the most plausible. 

I bring this up illustratively.   Because it's just another event that all of us have seen the evidence for, but none of us were there to witness. 

I personally believe you can pick apart the individual pieces of evidence of *ANYTHING*....but you're missing the forest for the trees.  The evidence that it *IS* inspired and inerrant is simply far more overwhelming than the excuses people make that it isn't.    To me, the arguments against it always end up feeling more like OJ's lawyers.    You can bring up a hundred lines of evidence, and they always have an excuse for each one...but there's just too much of it to ignore.  Too much proof surrounds it.   

Again...your mileage may vary. 

[rumborak]

To me, the cloud of evidence that it *IS* inspired of God and inerrant is simply too great to ignore.   

Whoa, I have to say the fact that you put those two very different things casually into one sentence makes me stop for sure.

Nobody here is questioning whether the Bible was inspired by God. I personally certainly don't believe in it since I'm a strong agnostic, but I will also not argue against somebody who says whatever was written was inspired by God. It's a matter of faith essentially.
That is very, very different from an inerrant Bible. Everybody here on the moderate side is asserting that, since the Bible was written by humans with their respective flaws and aspirations, it not only reasonable to expect flaws and errors, it is also clearly apparent in the documents we have. That means the writers can still have been inspired by God; it just doesn't mean that the writer's quill was guided by an invisible hand.

I really also don't see how you can consider the Bible inerrant when you see stuff like this:

Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."

Hares don't chew cud.

Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree."

Mustard doesn't grow to become trees.

rumborak

[jammindude]

I honestly don't even know how to answer that.   My jaw is on the floor.

The idea that God has gone through the trouble of making sure we have a guidebook, but then filling it with mistakes...  uhh...  wow. 

It's essentially implying that a) It is beyond God's ability to protect his word from human error.  (because he CAN protect his son from being born as perfect human and protect HIM from the taint of human imperfection...but no, the buck stops here...he couldn't have possibly done that with his word.)  and/or b) he would intentionally throw stumbling blocks into the roadway to knowledge.   In either case, I absolutely cannot agree.  Peter wrote under inspiration that men spoke NOT OF THEIR OWN will, but they spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit. 

I believe that The Bible was guided by Holy Spirit...God's power prevented us from being misguided or stumbled....and prevented errors in the Bible. 

Now...errors in translations?  That's a bit different.   But I've done my research in dozen's of translations...most of them don't deviate from each other much.  And I almost never see differences in *teaching*...most just look like they got a bit creative with a thesaurus.    But looking at several translations creates a pretty clear picture of what the oldest documents actually say.   

So while we may have gotten a certain individuals POV...God's spirit guided the writing of the Bible and protected it from any errors in teaching. 

2 Tim 3:16 says that *ALL* Scripture is inspired of God...but it goes on to say that that is the reason why it is used for teaching, correction and so on.   God would not give us a book for teaching and correction that was filled with mistakes.   That line of reasoning, to me, does not even make any sense. 

Sorry...I stand by what I said.   The two thoughts go hand in hand.

[rumborak]

It's essentially implying that a) It is beyond God's ability to protect his word from human error.

What about the possibility that God simply doesn't inhibit people from writing wrong stuff? When you make all these statements here about scripture, do you feel yourself guided by God with every letter you type?
Is it so utterly inconceivable to you that you are essentially the same type of normal Joe Schmoe as the guy 2,000 years ago who wanted to preserve the stories that had been passed down for generations?
Or, how do you explain Galatians 2:11-21? If even the apostles can't agree on theology, how can their words be inerrant?

rumborak

[jammindude]

Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."

Hares don't chew cud. 

Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt, Head Curator, Department of Zoology of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., in commenting on these findings, wrote: “There seems to be no reason to doubt the authenticity of the reports of various workers that rabbits customarily store semi-digested food in the caecum and that this is later reingested and passes a second time through the digestive tract.”

In the broad scheme of things....science has redefined what it means to "chew the cud"...this a modern change of definition...not a Bible error. 

Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree."

Mustard doesn't grow to become trees.

rumborak
[/quote]


Again...this is by modern definitions.   Mustard plants grow up to 10-15 feet tall and have sturdy enough branches for "the birds of heaven" to rest upon.  So his audience identified the mustard plant as a "tree"...regardless of our modern redefining of the matter.

Jesus was not giving a botany lesson.   Last I checked, the mustard seed is NOT "the smallest of all seeds" either...but it WAS the smallest seed known AT THAT TIME.   So Jesus was absolutely correct both in calling the mustard plant a "tree" and the mustard seed as "the smallest of all seeds"...

Can you imagine how bogged down Jesus entire ministry would have become if he would have been correcting *EVERYTHING* that hadn't been discovered yet?   He had three and a half years to teach them about what God expected of them.   He could have spent 10 times that amount of time correcting ideas that hadn't been conceived yet....and in the process, he would have alienated his audience over unnecessary things. 

[rumborak]

I can only make the comment that seemingly, your "deep study" of all sides of the subject has caused you to accept even the most far-fetched explanations. I fail to see how that is a reasonable or balanced judgment.
Sorry, mustard bushes may grow high, but they are not trees. Unless you're saying Jesus was too stupid to distinguish a tall bush from a tree.
Check out this fellow who was on a similar errant: https://dqhall59.com/images/tall_mustard.jpg
Is that a tree to you?

And no, eating your own poop isn't "chewing cud" either. That's what hares do. Chewing cud is when you regurgitate preprocessed food.

rumborak