★ Citsonga ★ Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 After Matthew reports the birth of Christ (Matthew 1:18-25), he includes a visit of the "Magi" or "wise men" (2:1-12). During the text about the Magi, it says that Joseph, Mary and Jesus are living in a "house" (2:11), having lived in Bethlehem for a while (presumably about two years since Jesus' birth, based on 2:16) as the Magi made their journey. After the Magi leave, an angel tells Joseph to take his family to Egypt to avoid Herod's murderous plot (2:13-18). Then, after living in Egypt for a while, Herod dies and they leave Egypt to settle in Nazareth (2:19-23). Luke's account reports Mary & Joseph's travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, Jesus' birth and a visit of the shepherds (Luke 2:1-20), and Jesus being taken to the Temple (2:21-38). In keeping with Old Testament Law, Jesus is circumcised "on the eighth day" (2:21). The "time of their purification according to the Law of Moses" (2:22) would be an additional 33 days (see Leviticus 12:1-4), after which they make their "sacrifice" (Luke 2:24), where Simeon and Anna worship God (2:25-38). Then Luke reports, "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him" (2:39-40). So, based on Luke's account, Jesus' family headed to Nazareth a mere 41 days after Jesus' birth, while Matthew suggests a couple years in Bethlehem and then an unspecified amount of time in Egypt, all before going Nazareth. That is a very substantial difference. Most commentaries I've read concerning this suggest that after the temple visit, the family went back to Bethlehem and then to Egypt before going to Nazareth, thus attempting to insert the Egypt portion of Matthew's account between Luke 2:28 and 39. However, Luke 2:39 clearly says that Jesus' family returned to Nazareth "when they had performed all things according to the law," not sometime later. So, there is still a significant timing dilemma here. Another interesting thing is that Matthew's account does not mention Nazareth before Jesus' birth. It only mentions Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1), giving no suggestion whatsoever that the previous events (1:18-25) happened anywhere else. Thus, an unbiased reader of Matthew (that is, one who had not been influenced by Luke's account) would have the impression that they were already living in Bethlehem and that Jesus was probably born in the "house" that Matthew mentions (2:11). Luke's account, however, places Mary and Joseph initially in Nazareth (Luke 1:26-27), only to travel to Bethlehem (2:4) because of orders to participate in a census (2:1-3). One could argue that there is not a contradiction with this part, since it is merely based on Matthew's silence about them being in Nazareth prior to Jesus' birth. However, there is an overarching issue with the two different accounts of Jesus' birth. You see, other than the names Mary, Joseph, and Jesus, and the birth taking place in Bethlehem, the accounts of the Nativity presented by Matthew and Luke bear no real resemblance to each other; they are, in effect, two completely different stories. Thus, I am inclined to believe that it is highly likely that the reason Matthew's account is devoid of mentioning Nazareth before Bethlehem is precisely because Matthew meant that they already lived in Bethlehem. Furthermore, Matthew seems to imply that after coming back from Egypt, Joseph planned to return to the region of Bethlehem, but only went to Nazareth instead when he heard Archelaus was reigning in Judea (Matthew 2:22-23). If Joseph and Mary really were residents of Nazareth, then wouldn't they have gone there anyway upon their return (as in Luke), instead of initially considering going to Bethlehem? Matthew's account implies that they were not residents of Nazareth until after coming back from Egypt. Contradictions like these are what made me begin to realize that the bible is NOT and CANNOT BE the "perfect word of god." SEASON'S GREETINGS, Y'ALL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Undoubtedly, the accounts of the "miraculaous" birth are contradictory and irreconcilable. And they completely left out Mary's Immaculate Delivery. You don't read much about that, but clearly Jesus didn't come through the nasty Holy twat attached to a ghostly placenta. No, this wouldn't do - if mary had immacuate conception and her body didn't rot but was instead taken into the heavens, and she remained a virgin her whole life (even though married to Joseph and having another son, James, the brother of Jesus), then clearly there was no grunting, sweating and passage of a bloody amniotic fluid covering the baby Jesus. Immaculate Delivery is when Jesus painlessly passed directly through the skin of Mary's abdomen and floated into her arms. In this way, Her Holy Cunt remained intact and Mary was not subjected to the curse from God in Genesis 3:16: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraBardus Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Well, if you also factor in that Nazareth probably didn't even exist during Jesus's lifetime, and you've got an even bigger problem with it all. As far as I know, there's no indication it was even there before the 4th century. I've heard claims that it was founded somewhere around 70 AD after the 1st Jewish War, (Still too late), but as far as I know, all archeological backing says much later, around 400 AD or so. Further evidence the Gospels as they exist today were written far, far after the fact and should be in no way considered an accurate account of any events that occurred during the period. They're just not reliable, for a myriad of reasons. Not the least of which being their absurd claims of magical powers. They're also contradicted by most of the existing evidence (or as is often the case, a total lack of evidence where there should be at least a little). No ancient historians or geographers mention Nazareth before the beginning of the fourth century. Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature. Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulun (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD). Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insanezenmistress Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I had a very hard time dealing with the fact that Herod, whom everyone in his day loved to hate, never ever killed all the boys 2 years old and under. We know alot about Herod and THAT is apice of history he could not have lived down. I think i had little problem if the OT contradicted, and i could sting myself along with all the rest of the NT blunders ( one scarecly sees them when they read for inspiration) But when i learned that Mathew's history was false. Well it kinda broke the bank. But it is kinda funny that IF their was a Nazereth earlier than 4 century, it was a Necropilis. Jesus came form the city of the dead.. to bring sinners to life abundantly. izm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted December 21, 2009 Author Share Posted December 21, 2009 I had a very hard time dealing with the fact that Herod, whom everyone in his day loved to hate, never ever killed all the boys 2 years old and under. We know alot about Herod and THAT is apice of history he could not have lived down. There are a lot of little things with these two nativity accounts that I hadn't mentioned that don't quite jive, and Herod's alleged murder is part of another apparent discrepancy (not to mention the lack of any extrabiblical mention of this story, which you allude to). Matthew, which implies that Joseph & Mary were likely Bethlehem residents, has Herod kill off all the little boys in that specific area, thinking that was enough. However, if, as Luke claims, there had been a census with people coming from all over to register at Bethlehem and then return to their hometowns, then Herod certainly would have known about it and therefore would not have assumed that the child allegedly born in Bethlehem was necessarily residing in Bethlehem at the time. Wouldn't he have pulled the census records and had each of the babies reported therein hunted down? Another little discrepancy that I didn't mention in the first post is the fact that Matthew has the Magi give expensive gifts, which commentators often claim were used to pay for the family's trip to Egypt. However, Luke claims that when Jesus was taken to the temple for dedication, Joseph & Mary offered the poor family's offering. And, of course, there are other little differences as well, such as the angel appearing to Mary in Luke's version but to Joseph in Matthew's version. A little difference like that, when taken by itself, isn't a big deal, since it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that both angelic appearances could have happened and that each reporter only mentioned one of them. However, when taking the whole stories together and seeing that there are numerous differences, so much so that we actually have two very different stories with very few commonalities, then it becomes unreasonable to assume that the differences are insignificant. And, as I've already noted in my first post, some things in these account simply cannot be harmonized. The nativity contradictions were among the first things that got me to seriously question my faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraBardus Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 The contradictions and inconsistencies definitely helped me along as well. For me it started with the other end of the story though, the end of Jesus's life and all the contradictions and errors there that hit me first. The one I noticed first was the promise of 'three days and three nights' Jesus made. However, none of the Gospel accounts add up to that much time. He dies on Friday, either in the morning or afternoon, and rises on Sunday before the sun rises, or concurrent with it. No matter how you look at it, not three days and nights. After I noticed that, seeing the other inconsistencies and errors was a lot easier to do. Probably because I was actually looking for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Undoubtedly, the accounts of the "miraculaous" birth are contradictory and irreconcilable. And they completely left out Mary's Immaculate Delivery. You don't read much about that, but clearly Jesus didn't come through the nasty Holy twat attached to a ghostly placenta. No, this wouldn't do - if mary had immacuate conception and her body didn't rot but was instead taken into the heavens, and she remained a virgin her whole life (even though married to Joseph and having another son, James, the brother of Jesus), then clearly there was no grunting, sweating and passage of a bloody amniotic fluid covering the baby Jesus. Immaculate Delivery is when Jesus painlessly passed directly through the skin of Mary's abdomen and floated into her arms. In this way, Her Holy Cunt remained intact and Mary was not subjected to the curse from God in Genesis 3:16: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children." And the vernix mucosa, don't leave out that lovely bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 The latest from Nazareth. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 The latest from Nazareth. mwc According to this article (and I note that the boxes have "Strenger Than Fiction" misspelled), Nazareth has been shown archeologically to have existed in Jesus's time. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brakeman Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 The latest from Nazareth. mwc According to this article (and I note that the boxes have "Strenger Than Fiction" misspelled), Nazareth has been shown archeologically to have existed in Jesus's time. Right? Well .. If any of this bears scrutiny, all it says is that a single dwelling existed, a far cry from a named city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraBardus Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I'm interested enough to seek out more information. It would be something if it's credible. I'd need more than just this singular article to convince me of it though. I would like to find out more about this find though. It still does nothing to 'prove' the existence of Jesus himself, despite what the article claims. I'm skeptical considering the source. Also, what constitutes 'Jesus Era'? From what I see here, it could be as late as 70 AD. There are no other specific dates given or dating methods referenced. I'd like to see more documentation about the site before I say anything either way. It would indeed be interesting if it can indeed be shown to be what the article claims it is. As Brokeman said though, it's just a single residence, and not really evidence of a named city or settlement. For all we know it could just be a single out of the way farmhouse or ranch that was in the middle of nowhere. Managed to dig up a bit more on the subject. It appears to be a Christian funded dig. Alarm bells are ringing, but I'm not prepared to discount it yet either. Could be legit, but then again, it could just be part of an old church. They're saying it's getting pretty big. More than 85 meters just so far, and likely bigger. I'm not sure how 'poor' a family home it might be at that size. Archeologists uncover house in Nazareth dating to time of Jesus By BRIAN BLONDY A major archeological discovery just before Christmas could explain what life was like for Jesus and the Jewish community of Nazareth in which he grew up, the remains of a Jewish home... The remains of a Jewish home dating to the first century are seen in front of the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth yesterday. Just 100 meters from the Church of the Annunciation, archeologists have exposed the remains of several walls of a house thought to date to the first century. It is the first time that archeologists have found remains of dwellings in Nazareth from this period. The find was uncovered over the past few months, when workers dug up the courtyard of a former convent to make room for the construction of the International Center of Mary of Nazareth on the site. "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth and thereby sheds lights on the way of life at the time of Jesus," Dr. Yardenna Alexandre, excavations director at the Antiquities Authority, said on Monday. "The building that we found is small and modest and it is most likely typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period. From the few written sources that there are, we know that in the 1st century CE, Nazareth was a small Jewish village." The home consists of four rooms, a courtyard, a water cistern and a small camouflaged grotto, which is presumed to have been a hiding place for the occupants from the invading Roman army. The grotto could have concealed around six people for a few hours, Alexandre said. But the Romans did not attack the hamlet, which had little strategic value at the time. Similar grottos have been found in other ancient Jewish communities in the Lower Galilee such as in Cana (modern Kafr Kanna), which did witness battles between Jews and Romans. The home and previous discoveries of local tombs suggest that Nazareth was a community of approximately 50 houses that encompassed some 1.6 hectares, according to Alexandre. She is certain that the locals lived a simple lifestyle, because ofthe construction techniques that were used and the modest clay and chalk pottery that was found. The scientists concluded that a Jewish family lived in the home because of chalk, which was used by Jews at that time to ensure the purity and preservation of food and water kept inside the vessels. The archeological find in such close proximity to the Church of the Annunciation breaks new ground on understanding the time period of Jesus. According to the New Testament, Mary, the mother of Jesus, lived in Nazareth together with her husband, Joseph; it was there that she received the revelation from the Angel Gabriel that she would conceive a child to be born the Son of God. The New Testament mentions that Jesus himself grew up in Nazareth. Today, Christians believe the Church of the Annunciation is located where Mary and Joseph raised their family. "It is highly probable that Jesus knew the Jewish occupants who lived in this house and in this community," Alexandre said. So far, the archeologists have uncovered 85 square meters of the house, and they believe it could be much larger. The built-up area surrounding the excavation site will probably yield further evidence of the house and the surrounding community, Alexandre said. The dwelling will now become a focal point of the new international Christian center being built next to the site. Alexandre said limited space and high population density in Nazareth means it is unlikely that archeologists will be able to carry out any further evacuations in the area, leaving this dwelling to tell the story of what Jesus's boyhood home may have looked like. From the Jerusalem Post Wonder how long it will take them to start claiming that it was Jesus's house? There are a lot of issues with this, as it's still not entirely supported by Biblical accounts. The NT clearly states that Nazareth was a city, and not a town or settlement in Mat 2:23 and Luke 1:26 for example. There is still no evidence of a city called Nazareth by uncovering a single dwelling that may or may not have been part of a larger settlement. From Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Residential building from the time of Jesus exposed in Nazareth 21 Dec 2009 The remains were discovered in an archaeological excavation of the Israel Antiquities Authority near the Church of the Annunciation. (Communicated by the Israel Antiquities Authority) An archaeological excavation the Israel Antiquities Authority recently conducted has revealed new information about ancient Nazareth from the time of Jesus. Remains of a dwelling that date to the Early Roman period were discovered for the first time in an excavation, which was carried out prior to the construction of the "International Marian Center of Nazareth" by the the Association Mary of Nazareth, next to the Church of the Annunciation. According to the New Testament, Mary, the mother of Jesus, lived in Nazareth together with her husband Joseph. It was there that she also received the revelation by the Angel Gabriel that she would conceive a child to be born the Son of God. The New Testament mentions that Jesus himself grew up in Nazareth. In 1969 the Church of the Annunciation was erected in the spot that the Catholic faith identified with the house of Mary. It was built atop the remains of three earlier churches, the oldest of which is ascribed to the Byzantine period (the fourth century CE). In light of the plans to build there, the Israel Antiquities Authority recently undertook a small scale archaeological excavation close to the church, which resulted in the exposure of the structure. According to Yardenna Alexandre, excavation director on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth and thereby sheds light on the way of life at the time of Jesus. The building that we found is small and modest and it is most likely typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period. From the few written sources that there are, we know that in the first century CE Nazareth was a small Jewish village, located inside a valley. Until now a number of tombs from the time of Jesus were found in Nazareth; however, no settlement remains have been discovered that are attributed to this period." In the excavation a large broad wall that dates to the Mamluk period (the fifteenth century CE) was exposed that was constructed on top of and "utilized" the walls of an ancinet building. This earlier building consisted of two rooms and a courtyard in which there was a rock-hewn cistern into which the rainwater was conveyed. The artifacts recovered from inside the building were few and mostly included fragments of pottery vessels from the Early Roman period (the first and second centuries CE). In addition, several fragments of chalk vessels were found, which were only used by Jews in this period because such vessels were not susceptible to becoming ritually unclean. Another hewn pit, whose entrance was apparently camouflaged, was excavated and a few pottery sherds from the Early Roman period were found inside it. The excavator, Yardenna Alexandre, said, "Based on other excavations that I conducted in other villages in the region, this pit was probably hewn as part of the preparations by the Jews to protect themselves during the Great Revolt against the Romans in 67 CE". In a few of the archaeological excavations that were carried out in this crowded city, a number of burial caves dating to the Early Roman period were exposed that are situated close to the inhabited area. The modern Church of the Annunciation was constructed in the heart of Nazareth, above the Crusader Church of the Annunciation and atop the ruins of a church from the Byzantine period. In the middle of these churches is a cave that was already ascribed in antiquity to the house of Jesus' family. Many storage pits and cisterns, some of which date to the Early Roman period, were found in the compound of the Church of the Annunciation. The "Association Mary of Nazareth" intends on conserving and presenting the remains of the newly discovered house inside the building planned for the "International Marian Center of Nazareth". from Yahoo News: First Jesus-era house discovered in Nazareth By DIAA HADID, Associated Press Writer Diaa Hadid, Associated Press Writer NAZARETH, Israel – Just in time for Christmas, archaeologists on Monday unveiled what may have been the home of one of Jesus' childhood neighbors. The humble dwelling is the first dating to the era of Jesus to be discovered in Nazareth, then a hamlet of around 50 impoverished Jewish families where Jesus spent his boyhood. Archaeologists and present-day residents of Nazareth imagined Jesus as a youngster, playing with other children in the isolated village, not far from the spot where the Archangel Gabriel revealed to Mary that she would give birth to the boy. Today the ornate Basilica of the Annunciation marks that spot, and Nazareth is the largest Arab city in northern Israel, with about 65,000 residents. Muslims now outnumber Christians two to one in the noisy, crowded city. The archaeological find shows how different it was 2000 years ago: There were no Christians or Muslims, the Jewish Temple stood in Jerusalem and tiny Nazareth stood near a battleground between Roman rulers and Jewish guerrillas. The Jews of Nazareth dug camouflaged grottos to hide from Roman invaders, said archaeologist Yardena Alexandre, excavations director at the Israel Antiquities Authority. But the hamlet was so far off the beaten path that the caves were apparently not needed, she said. Based on clay and chalk shards found at the site, the dwelling appeared to house a "simple Jewish family," Alexandre added, as workers carefully chipped away at mud with small pickaxes to reveal stone walls. "This may well have been a place that Jesus and his contemporaries were familiar with," Alexandre said. A young Jesus may have played around the house with his cousins and friends. "It's a logical suggestion." The discovery so close to Christmas pleased local Christians. "They say if the people do not speak, the stones will speak," said the Rev. Jack Karam of the nearby basilica. Archaeologist Stephen Pfann, president of the University of The Holy Land, noted: "It's the only witness that we have from that area that shows us what the walls and floors were like inside Nazareth in the first century." Pfann was not involved in the dig. Alexandre said workers uncovered the first signs of the dwelling last summer, but it became clear only this month that it was a structure from the days of Jesus. Alexandre's team found remains of a wall, a hideout, a courtyard and a water system that appeared to collect water from the roof and supply it to the home. The discovery was made when builders dug up the courtyard of a former convent to make room for a new Christian center, just yards from the Basilica. It is not clear how big the dwelling is. Alexandre's team has uncovered about 900 square feet of the house, but it may have been for an extended family and could be much larger, she said. Archaeologists also found a camouflaged entry way into a grotto, which Alexandre believes was used by Jews to hide from Roman soldiers who were battling Jewish rebels for control of the area. The grotto could have hidden around six people for a few hours, she said. However, Roman soldiers did not end up battling Nazareth's Jews because the hamlet had little strategic value. The Roman army was more interested in larger towns and strategic hilltop communities, she said. Alexandre said similar camouflaged grottos were found in other ancient Jewish communities of the lower Galilee, such as the nearby biblical village of Cana, which did witness battles between Jews and Romans. Archaeologists also found clay and chalk vessels likely used by Galilean Jews of the time. The scientists concluded a Jewish family lived there because of the chalk, which Jews used to ensure the ritual purity of the food and water kept inside the vessels. The shards also date back to the time of Jesus, which includes the late Hellenic, early Roman period that ranges from around 100 B.C. to the first century, Alexandre said. The determination was made by comparing the findings to shards and remains typical of that period found in other parts of the Galilee, she said. The absence of any remains of glass vessels or imported products suggested the people who lived in the dwelling were simple, but Alexandre said the remains did not indicate whether they were traders or farmers. The only other artifacts from the time of Jesus found in the Nazareth area are ancient burial caves that provided a rough idea of the village's population at the time, Alexandre said. Work is now taking place to clear newer ruins built above the dwelling, which will be preserved. The dwelling will become part of a new international Christian center being built close to the site and funded by a French Roman Catholic group, said Marc Hodara of the Chemin Neuf Community overseeing construction. Alexandre said limited space and population density makes it unlikely that archaeologists can carry out further excavations in the area, leaving this dwelling to tell the story of what Jesus' boyhood home may have looked like. The discovery at "this time, this period, is very interesting, especially as a Christian," Karam said. "For me it is a great gift." I'm seeing quite a range of dates for this site. As much as a 200 year margin of error. It's still to early to tell, but it looks to me like it may be as old as the Gospels themselves, at around 100 CE. At present, this is promising, but far from conclusive. I suspect the Christians controlling the sight are jumping to a lot of conclusions here. Getting all excited without warrant and playing up the discovery for much more than any information at the present really indicates is true. Put simply, this is something to come back to in a few months once the site and artifacts have had some real work done on them by professionals. Not that there aren't already professionals working on it, but I'm seeing a lot of over excited religious based conclusion jumping so far. Data needs to be gathered and analyzed, and then we can talk about how valid or important the site is or how much evidence it is of the existence or non-existence of a place called Nazareth. Even if it is, it still doesn't appear to match or provide backing for the Biblical account of the place. It can be argued that it might have been a 'city' at the time the Gospels were written, but may not have only been a settlement when Jesus supposedly did, but either way, in all honesty, it still doesn't prove anything about Jesus himself or his personal existence. Still skeptical, but definitely interested in more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 ContraBardus sums things up pretty well. An actual dig report would be handy. It would (should) show the layers and all of what was taken from the site. This would give the information they used to date everything. Right now it sounds like just simple pottery and the like. No coins or anything. With that in mind the window is rather large I would think (~200 years give or take like has been stated) since there's no way to determine how long the house was there before the war (assuming this feature was added for the war...I'm assuming this is a feature found elsewhere that they're using for comparison...otherwise such a hideaway could have been there for many reasons I suppose). Josephus mentions actual cities (polis) being built in less than 20 years in the this same rough time frame (early 1st century CE) so a little town of only a few buildings I would imagine could pop up in a year or so quite easily. Even if we call it five years this means that if the whole thing was there for the war in 66/67 it didn't need to exist prior to 60. So that date doesn't help. To get us to a "right" date they would need something from around 1 CE/BCE (using my made up 5 year build time). This is a very simplistic example of course. Towns are more often a bit more organic in nature and evolve over time. The way the article describes the site this house was at the very bottom of everything. It was the first thing at that location. There was nothing before it that "evolved" into this house. No house that fell down for some reason (ie. war, earthquake, fire, etc.) and this "Nazareth" is the very first one at this location. If this is true then it's absolutely *vital* it dates to a baby jesus (G.Matthew or G.Luke) or that part of the story is busted. If it can't date back to the late 20's/early 30's then that part of the story dies too. But a sample size of 1 house is rather limited and these folks could have been new to the neighborhood. More data is needed to truly stab this thing through the heart. I'm curious as to why I've seen dates from 100 BCE on as well as dates that are simply the 1st and 2nd centuries CE (which is why I said what I said above about dating far enough back...the dates I've seen so far are ambiguous but ~200 years seems to be the stable window). I don't know if the original info is this messed up or if one of the news agencies got it wrong (probably this). It would help to know for certain. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belladonna Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Undoubtedly, the accounts of the "miraculaous" birth are contradictory and irreconcilable. And they completely left out Mary's Immaculate Delivery. You don't read much about that, but clearly Jesus didn't come through the nasty Holy twat attached to a ghostly placenta. No, this wouldn't do - if mary had immacuate conception and her body didn't rot but was instead taken into the heavens, and she remained a virgin her whole life (even though married to Joseph and having another son, James, the brother of Jesus), then clearly there was no grunting, sweating and passage of a bloody amniotic fluid covering the baby Jesus. Immaculate Delivery is when Jesus painlessly passed directly through the skin of Mary's abdomen and floated into her arms. In this way, Her Holy Cunt remained intact and Mary was not subjected to the curse from God in Genesis 3:16: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children." Well, Shyone...the discrepancies between the two birth accounts have indeed been reconciled: http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp However, just don't expect it to make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 Well, Shyone...the discrepancies between the two birth accounts have indeed been reconciled: http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp However, just don't expect it to make any sense. They have not been reconciled. It is impossible to fit Matthew's story of the trip to Egypt into Luke's account. It simply can't be done. A lot of the other details could be "harmonized" by piecing details from each account into one chronology, although the only reason to need to do such extensive harmonization is because these are two completely different stories. But the trip to Egypt CANNOT be fitted into Luke's account (any claim otherwise is being dishonest with Luke's text). Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraBardus Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 As far as I know, the stock response is that Luke is just dictating an account told to him by others, where as Matthew's account is 'more direct' and therefore the one that should be assumed correct. Of course there's no evidence of this perceived validity of Matthew, and it's entirely based on Luke's admission that he was not a direct witness to any of the events. It also doesn't address the many other discrepancies in the various Gospels. That's the general rationality of it all though. Luke is a second hand account, but Christians claim that the other Gospels are eye witness accounts written by the actual apostles who's names are on the books, even though there's no actual evidence evidence they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 As far as I know, the stock response is that Luke is just dictating an account told to him by others, where as Matthew's account is 'more direct' and therefore the one that should be assumed correct. Of course there's no evidence of this perceived validity of Matthew, and it's entirely based on Luke's admission that he was not a direct witness to any of the events. Which is basically an admission that there are inaccuracies in Luke. Anyway, when I was a believer, I don't recall ever being told that Matthew's nativity was the one to be assumed correct. Both were supposedly correct. But, beyond that, when the christmas story is told or read from the bible, it's almost always done from Luke's version. Sometimes a few details from Matthew are sprinkled in, but Luke is nearly always the basis used for the christmas story, at least in my experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belladonna Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Well, Shyone...the discrepancies between the two birth accounts have indeed been reconciled: http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp However, just don't expect it to make any sense. They have not been reconciled. It is impossible to fit Matthew's story of the trip to Egypt into Luke's account. It simply can't be done. A lot of the other details could be "harmonized" by piecing details from each account into one chronology, although the only reason to need to do such extensive harmonization is because these are two completely different stories. But the trip to Egypt CANNOT be fitted into Luke's account (any claim otherwise is being dishonest with Luke's text). Period. My post was made with the most sarcastic of intent; in no way do I believe the reconciliation was serious. I don't believe this bullshit any more than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest I Love Dog Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Of course, none of this in the report takes in the distinct possibility that Jesus never existed anyway and was just a re-hash of Mithra/Mithras. Jesus was Mithra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted December 24, 2009 Author Share Posted December 24, 2009 My post was made with the most sarcastic of intent; in no way do I believe the reconciliation was serious. I don't believe this bullshit any more than you do. I understood that you weren't taking them very seriously, but I also wanted to clarify that it's actually impossible to reconcile all of the details. Another clarification: But the trip to Egypt CANNOT be fitted into Luke's account (any claim otherwise is being dishonest with Luke's text). When I said this, I should have said that it's either dishonest or ignorant rather than just plain dishonest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wt-hell?! Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Well, Shyone...the discrepancies between the two birth accounts have indeed been reconciled: http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp However, just don't expect it to make any sense. The author of this article obviously doesn't believe in the inerrant and inspired by god bible. Too bad he doesn't realize that the bible isn't really the true word of god. I'm sad I wasted my time reading it (bible and this article) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belladonna Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Reading the Bible isn't really a waste of time in terms of being able to point out the crap. This article and the author's lame attempt at making the two stories make sense? You are right. Complete waste of time. Next time, I think I will put on a disclaimer: *WARNING* CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST AHEAD. ARTICLE DOES NOT REFLECT VIEWS OF POSTER, AND CONTENTS THEREIN ARE NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Would that help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wt-hell?! Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Yes, that would be so great! haha And you're right, having read the bible is good to point out crap...I guess I'm more upset that I wasted time believing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted December 24, 2009 Author Share Posted December 24, 2009 And you're right, having read the bible is good to point out crap...I guess I'm more upset that I wasted time believing it Ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belladonna Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Yes, that would be so great! haha And you're right, having read the bible is good to point out crap...I guess I'm more upset that I wasted time believing it Now that...that I can absolutely agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts