Guest I Love Dog Posted December 30, 2010 Share Posted December 30, 2010 Dear born again, (BIG SNIP!) I hope, at least in part, I have answered your questions. Yes, Stranger. I now understand the following, from what you've written. 1. You will pick and choose whatever you need to MAKE the Bible the way you want it - perfect, inerrant and flawless. 2. You will justify what you do pick and choose, by saying that this could be the way God has chosen to work. 3. You will say that the scriptures were never altered or tampered with, but in the same breath, also say that segments were added later. 4. You will say that these later additions are not examples of tampering or alterations. 5. You will use any and every tactic necessary to hold to your preconceived dogma of the Bible's perfection. 6. You will not conform to any agreed standard of linguistic logic, but always try to subvert the meaning of anything to meet your Inerrantist criteria. 7. You've taken up the challenge in this thread because you know that so long as you do all of the above, nothing and nobody can ever change what you believe... and what you want to believe is more important to you than anything else. Therefore Stranger, I'm done with you. I won't waste any more words on you. You've won the challenge and beaten all opposition. Nobody can ever persuade you otherwise because you don't want to listen to anything that might change your mind. Congratulations! You have a perfectly closed mind. Locked and sealed and shut up against anything other than your own agenda. Goodbye. BAA. Excellent reply, BAA! You covered it in a nutshell! Congratulations, Stranger, a devious, dishonest and manipulated win. I'm so glad I'm not a Christian. It must be difficult understanding and interpreting the riddles, deciding who wrote what and when, who added words, who took out words, which version is the "correct" one, and using the "true word of god" to bullshit your way through life in the face of pure reason, logic and commonsense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 What was the prize? OH, wait, here we go, a bible for you, another for u, and one more for you. LOL Sorry guys, I gotta keep a sense of humor, even if it,s sad humor at best. In all honesty, however, this one stands out. 6.You will not conform to any agreed standard of linguistic logic, but always try to subvert the meaning of anything to meet your Inerrantist criteria. Well, then what can we agree on for debating standards, and who would benefit most from it? We could go on for the next 5 pages and establish rules and guidelines, but I think all of you know I do try to keep things in context, and at the very least, expound on possibilities, whether one believes them to be true or not. I will once again try to conclude on practical possibilities regarding these verses keeping in mind all of the arguments. Though I have already given this site, I will give it again, along with the one for the Matthew account, so all can see I am taking nothing out of easy possibilities that can be understood perhaps even better than the view being debated. http://biblelexicon.org/acts/1-18.htm http://biblelexicon.org/matthew/27-7.htm First "problem". Who bought the field? (used in Matthew) bought ἠγόρασαν ēgorasan 59 to buy in the marketplace, purchase from agora (used in Acts) this man οὗτος outos 3778 this probably from a redupl. of ho,, used as a demonstrative pronoun acquired ἐκτήσατο ektēsato 2932 to acquire a prim. verb Tell me here if you do not see a difference in the words used? First word used in Matthew: word meaning bought Second word, used in Acts: meaning aquired Now add to this the description just above this, "this man" being used as a demonstrative pronoun. Now does this not go along with what I have been saying? http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2932.htm Definition: (a) I acquire, win, get, purchase, buy, ( I possess, win mastery over. NASB Word Usage acquire (1), acquired (2), gain (1), get (1), obtain (1), possess (1). http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/59.htm Definition: I buy. Definition to buy in the marketplace, purchase NASB Word Usage bought (9), buy (11), buying (3), buys (2), make the purchase (1), purchased (3), spend (1). Now the first was the word from Acts, while the second was the word for Matthew. Now I am not saying that one could not be implied as the other, but what I am saying, is if there was a word that would more soundly explain what was meant, if Luke meant that Judas himself bought the field, in the sense being debated, why would he not of used it? Does it at least make a valid assumption? So together, the word, "this man" being used as a demonstrative pronoun, and the word used in Acts implying much more than the assumption of just a direct purchase, I conclude my view has valid evidence that supports it. This, with all of the other factors that I already pointed out, make this a very easy explanation to understand and believe. Now I will get to the other "problems" ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 How did Judas die? Using the same first two sites as given in the last post, home page of biblos.com and falling γενόμενος genomenos 1096 to come into being, to happen, to become from a prim. root gen- headlong, πρηνὴς prēnēs 4248 headlong from a modified form of pro he burst open ἐλάκησεν elakēsen 2997 to crack noisily from a prim. root lak-, see lakaó and all πάντα panta 3956 all, every a prim. word his intestines σπλάγχνα splanchna 4698 the inward parts (heart, liver, lungs, etc.), fig. the emotions of uncertain origin gushed ἐξεχύθη exechuthē 1632b to pour out, fig. to bestow from the same as ekcheó out. NOW THIS IS ACTS and hanged ἀπήγξατο apēnxato 519 to strangle, hang oneself from apo and agchó (to press, strangle) himself. AND THIS ONE IN MATTHEW These are what seem to be the same: Falling, or hanging. Same principle if implied to represent intentional fall. To crack noisily, easily representing a case hanging. The differences: the spilling of the intestines on the ground. Again, I see no reason to believe that this could not have happened after jumping (hanging, falling) off the ledge and perhaps breaking his neck, and the rope breaking, then falling on a stick or tree or sharp rock that could have made this a possibility. Again, even if one believes this could not happen, certainly any body left hanging would take no time to decay. I do not see this is a different account, just a extended version of the account. The last "problem". Why was the field called the field of blood? 18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. So in Acts, why was it called the field of blood? 4Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. 5And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. 6And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. 7And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 8Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. And how about Matthew? In both cases it was said to be called the field of blood based on the fact blood money was used to purchase this field, the money given to Judas to betray Jesus Christ. Strangers were buried here, but that is not why it was called the field of blood. Judas was lain out all bloody here, and certainly added to the name, but the reason remains the same, the name came from what was already established in Matthew and retold here, the betrayal of innocent blood. ==================================== Now I really don't expect to convince those with a pre-determined mind set (sound like some else around here -- snicker) but if an open mind is indeed used, can one not see all of these things being at the very least, possible, even if it does not mean there can be no other options? You Christians tend to do so, as I also used to do when I was a Christian. However, the various books of the Bible were not written as one single unit, they were written as separate scrolls by different people of different views for different purposes over a long period of time. They were a few selections out of many other various religious texts, only to later be cherry-picked to be canonized by the Council of Nicea. The rational approach is to look at each book as it was originally written, a work that was separate from the other books. Look at the flow of each individual book, look at its own text and try to understand what it is saying. Don't try to force it to mean something entirely different from what it says simply because some other individual wrote some other book that says something different. In other words, be honest with the text. Now can one truly be honest with the text if taken each individually when they were meant to retell in part some of the same stories to bring a point across. You are making it sound as though no NT writers knew of any other NT writers or their stories, though certain books, like Acts, were to be a historical account of the church establishment and spread, thus starting with the parts of the story of Jesus. How can you separate such cases? It would be like separating school history books from actual events! OH, Wait, that already happens! My bad. LOL Point being, you do have some valid thought on this, but this thought line has no place when a precise book was written to tell the events that unfolded at the conclusion of the four gospels. Acts was never meant to be understood apart from the story of Jesus, recorded in the gospels, but I do not think that I really need to tell you that. Until next time, Cits, peace out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted December 31, 2010 Share Posted December 31, 2010 To Citsonga... It's said that you can, "Set a thief to catch a thief". So I bow out of this thread and I defer to you. As an ex-Bible Inerrantist, you are better suited to the task of dealing with the Stranger than I am. When I was a Christian, I was of the Evangelical variety. For me, the Bible was the inspired word of God, but it never had to be perfect. In fact, I took it's imperfections as a sign that we see God, 'thru a glass, darkly' and not perfectly. I was happy to believe that the only perfect thing in this world was the life, death, sacrifice and re-birth of Jesus. Since he never wrote anything down and imperfect men did, I never had any problem with the imperfections and contradictions in the Bible. Imperfect men wrote down scripture long before Jesus and then did so again, decades after his departure, so why shouldn't their imperfect grasp of God's word be reflected in the obvious inconsistencies of the texts. Naturally I was fooling myself - as most, if not all ex-Christian's have, at one time or another. Anyway, that was then and this is now. Go get him! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To I Love Dog... Thanks man! The way I see it, the Stranger could be knowingly devious, dishonest and manipulative - which would make him a hypocrite. Or, it could be that he genuinely doesn't recognize that he's doing anything immoral - which would mean there's a fault in his moral compass. If it's the first, then he simply joins the ranks of the many hypocritical 'True Believers' who've graced this forum with their unwholesome presence. If it's the second, well, we've seen our share of the self-deluded too, haven't we? Or there could be a third and m-u-c-h more worrying possibility! Maybe there is a God. Maybe this God is exactly as the Stranger believes him to be. Maybe this God requires his 'True Believers' to be devious, dishonest and manipulative with scripture. Maybe the Stranger is exactly and totally and completely right and 'True Belief' means starting with the a priori assumption that the Bible is perfect and then altering, adding to and force-fitting scripture to MAKE it perfect. If so, you know what that means, don't you? Yep! WE'RE SCREWED!!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Citsonga - Please relay this to the Stranger... Please tell him the following; 1. Keep your Bible. 2. "6. You will not conform to any agreed standard of linguistic logic, but always try to subvert the meaning of anything to meet your Inerrantist criteria." The Stranger has completely misunderstood the meaning of the above point and so, everything he has written in answer to it, is a waste of time. The agreed standard of linguistic logic I was referring to was his personal 'problem'. The 'problem' is his a priori assumption of the Bible's inerrancy. Until he drops this assumption, anything he writes, anything he links to and any points he makes will be... A WASTE OF TIME. The only person he will be persuading is himself. Ooops! Sorry! I forgot that he's already made his mind up - so he can't be persuaded of anything different. I'll re-phrase that. The only thing he can do with his responses (until he drops his a priori assumption) is to reinforce the dogmatic certainty that already exists in his closed mind. 3. Please tell him not to bother replying to this message. He and I are no longer in direct dialog. However, I reserve the right to make relevant observations about this thread, which I will be monitoring as it develops. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Born again, I still luv ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Posted 23 December 2010 - 06:15 AM Stranger, regarding the different Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke, which I've mentioned a couple times and which are relevant with Christmas being a few days away, I thought I'd share some observations with you. Luke's account of the Nativity starts with Mary and Joseph in Nazareth (Luke 1:26-27; 2:4), and the angel Gabriel appears to Mary (1:26-38). Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem (2:4-5) only because of a census (2:1-3). Jesus was born there and placed in a manger because they couldn't find room at an inn (2:7). After a visit by some shepherds (2:8-20), Jesus is circumcised "on the eighth day" (2:21). Jesus is then taken to the Jerusalem upon the "time of their purification according to the Law of Moses" (2:22), which 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 says, "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth " (2:39). Matthew's account of the Nativity has an angel appear to Joseph (Matthew 1:20). Jesus is born in Bethlehem (1:25-2:1), after which the author 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 a couple years since Jesus' birth, based on 2:16) before the Magi arrive. 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, but on their way back to Judea they are warned that Herod's son is ruling there, so they settle in Nazareth (2:19-23). So, based on Luke's account, Jesus' family headed back to Nazareth a mere 41 days after Jesus' birth, while Matthew implies a couple years in Bethlehem after Jesus' birth and then an unspecified amount of time in Egypt, all before going Nazareth. That is a very substantial difference, is it not? 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 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, the proposed resolution simply does not work. 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 residents of 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). In an effort to downplay the discrepancy about Mary and Joseph's initial residence, it is often argued that the claim of a contradiction is merely based on Matthew's silence about them being in Nazareth prior to Jesus' birth. However, if you look at the flow of events in Matthew, you see that there is more to contend with than simply the author starting with Bethlehem and having the family in a house. There is also the return from Egypt, where the author indicates that the reason the family settled in Nazareth was because Joseph learned that Herod's son Archelaus was reigning in Judea (Matthew 2:22-23), which is the region where Bethlehem was. In other words, Nazareth was a Plan B in Matthew's account, which would not be the case if they were actually residents of Nazareth who only went to Bethlehem for a census (as Luke claims), would it? The fact that in Matthew their Plan A was to return to the region where Bethlehem was, coupled with the previous mention of them being in a house there, certainly makes it sound like Matthew's account was written from the perspective that they were Bethlehem residents (as opposed to Luke's version where they were Nazareth residents only visiting Bethlehem for a census), does it not? An overarching issue with the two different accounts of Jesus' birth is that, 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 virtually no resemblance to each other. While it is possible to force some of the details from the two accounts into a "harmonized account," the aforementioned problems about the timing between Jesus' birth and settling down in Nazareth, the trip to Egypt and Matthew's implication that Mary and Joseph were not residents of Nazareth until after Egypt show that the stories are indeed contradictory. This post has been edited by Citsonga: 23 December 2010 - 06:34 AM Before I go on with prophecy, let me get to this one next. This one kind of interest me. I will hopefully have an answer later today, that fits both accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Of course, most Christians would simply tell you that just like all of the gospels excel in the reason that they were written, the stories are often focused on the point that they are making, thus each account is only the highlights on which they are bringing out, and not the story in it's fullness. Thus, Luke just does not record all of the events that are recorded in Matthew, and by looking in detain at all gospels we can certainly conclude that this is true. Thus one can easily say Luke's account just simply does not tell the complete story in that time line just as though Luke tells things that Matthew does not, and this can be found and stated in every gospel. However, even though this is satisfactory for me, I wanted to see what else that I could find. What do you think of this? The sequence is as follows: Mary completed nine months of pregnancy and gave birth to Jesus in a manger (Luke 2:6), because there was no room in the Inn (verse 7). The shepherds were told by an angel (no star or wise men) to go to the birth with Mary and Joseph present (verse 16). The shepherds came and saw Christ's birth and left rejoicing. On the eighth day, Jesus was circumcised, and after forty days as the Law required (Leviticus 12:1-8), they left for Jerusalem to make an offering for the birth of Christ. After that, they returned to Galilee to their own city, Nazareth (Luke 2:39). This completes the actual birth of Christ. Wise men from the east (Magi) have yet to show up. About a YEAR or so later, Mary and Joseph were back in Bethlehem to complete the census. Notice Matthew 2:1. Jesus was already born. The wise men were led by a star, and they came to King Herod the Great. Herod asked them what time did the star appear. It took the wise men or Magi, from the actual birth of Christ in Luke 2, OVER A YEAR before they reached Herod (A totally different time period from the birth of Jesus). http://www.biblestudy.org/question/why-is-matthew-different-than-luke-about-birth-of-jesus.html Now I have yet to verify the census issue to see if infact, the family would of had reason to go back to Jesus birth place or not. I will let you know if this holds up a little later. I might find my answer on this sight: http://christianthinktank.com/ This site certainly seems to go deep into issues. I will also get back with you on the other concerns shortly regarding Matthew and Luke. This is just a prelude to the full answer I wish to expel, and so until I complete this, I wish ya the best. With any luck, I should be able to answer more by the end of the day or tonight. God bless (or reason, if you prefer. That is, if the two can be separated. LOL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 What was the prize? OH, wait, here we go, a bible for you, another for u, and one more for you. LOL Sorry guys, I gotta keep a sense of humor, even if it,s sad humor at best. I've got quite a few Bibles already. In all honesty, however, this one stands out. 6.You will not conform to any agreed standard of linguistic logic, but always try to subvert the meaning of anything to meet your Inerrantist criteria. Well, then what can we agree on for debating standards, and who would benefit most from it? The issue should not be who would benefit the most, but what is sensible. When you apply linguistic approaches that you yourself would not accept if used to try to prove another religion's text, then you're being dishonest with the text (though you may not even realize it). I think all of you know I do try to keep things in context, No you don't. When ignoring the context of a statement and forcing it to mean something else serves your purpose, that's exactly what you do. and at the very least, expound on possibilities, whether one believes them to be true or not. You try to make possibilities out of things that don't really work within the text. First "problem". Who bought the field? (used in Matthew) bought ἠγόρασαν ēgorasan 59 to buy in the marketplace, purchase from agora (used in Acts) this man οὗτος outos 3778 this probably from a redupl. of ho,, used as a demonstrative pronoun acquired ἐκτήσατο ektēsato 2932 to acquire a prim. verb Tell me here if you do not see a difference in the words used? First word used in Matthew: word meaning bought Second word, used in Acts: meaning aquired Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. First, if you use money to acquire something, then what have you done? You've made a PURCHASE! That's precisely why various translations (including the KJV text cited above) say that Judas purchased the field, because it is clear that that is exactly what is meant in the text. How hard can that be to see? Matthew 27 [5] And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. [6] And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. [7] And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Second, in the version in Matthew (cited above), Judas does not acquire the land, now does he? He hangs himself and the priests acquire the land by purchasing it. Now, Stranger, are you ever going to stop twisting the Bible to try to make it say what you want it to say? Now add to this the description just above this, "this man" being used as a demonstrative pronoun. Now does this not go along with what I have been saying? No, not at all. "This man" is Judas, and in Acts he is the one who makes the purchase. http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2932.htm Definition: (a) I acquire, win, get, purchase, buy, (b ) I possess, win mastery over. NASB Word Usage acquire (1), acquired (2), gain (1), get (1), obtain (1), possess (1). http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/59.htm Definition: I buy. Definition to buy in the marketplace, purchase NASB Word Usage bought (9), buy (11), buying (3), buys (2), make the purchase (1), purchased (3), spend (1). Now the first was the word from Acts, while the second was the word for Matthew. Now I am not saying that one could not be implied as the other, but what I am saying, is if there was a word that would more soundly explain what was meant, if Luke meant that Judas himself bought the field, in the sense being debated, why would he not of used it? Does it at least make a valid assumption? LOL! You've just ruined your whole argument! Take a look at that the first one again and you'll see that it specifies "purchase, buy" as part of the definition! Do you now see how you're grasping at straws here, Stranger? So together, the word, "this man" being used as a demonstrative pronoun, and the word used in Acts implying much more than the assumption of just a direct purchase, I conclude my view has valid evidence that supports it. This, with all of the other factors that I already pointed out, make this a very easy explanation to understand and believe. No, your conclusion doesn't have valid evidence. As has just been shown, the very definition of the word for "acquire" includes "purchase, buy," which is the clear implication when money is used in the transaction, and various Bible translations render the term "purchased." In other words, YOU'RE WRONG. Just admit it, Stranger. It's no big deal, we've all been wrong before, and I even used to take the same approach to the Bible as you do, so I was equally wrong in the past. I've been able to admit that I was wrong and adjust my views according to the evidence. Can you do the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 What do you think of this? The sequence is as follows: Mary completed nine months of pregnancy and gave birth to Jesus in a manger (Luke 2:6), because there was no room in the Inn (verse 7). The shepherds were told by an angel (no star or wise men) to go to the birth with Mary and Joseph present (verse 16). The shepherds came and saw Christ's birth and left rejoicing. On the eighth day, Jesus was circumcised, and after forty days as the Law required (Leviticus 12:1-8), they left for Jerusalem to make an offering for the birth of Christ. After that, they returned to Galilee to their own city, Nazareth (Luke 2:39). This completes the actual birth of Christ. That's the version in Luke, in a nutshell. Wise men from the east (Magi) have yet to show up. About a YEAR or so later, Mary and Joseph were back in Bethlehem to complete the census. Notice Matthew 2:1. Jesus was already born. The wise men were led by a star, and they came to King Herod the Great. Herod asked them what time did the star appear. It took the wise men or Magi, from the actual birth of Christ in Luke 2, OVER A YEAR before they reached Herod (A totally different time period from the birth of Jesus). There are some serious problems with this. First, look at what I already pointed out in my initial post about the Nativity discrepancies, which poses a problem with your claim: In an effort to downplay the discrepancy about Mary and Joseph's initial residence, it is often argued that the claim of a contradiction is merely based on Matthew's silence about them being in Nazareth prior to Jesus' birth. However, if you look at the flow of events in Matthew, you see that there is more to contend with than simply the author starting with Bethlehem and having the family in a house. There is also the return from Egypt, where the author indicates that the reason the family settled in Nazareth was because Joseph learned that Herod's son Archelaus was reigning in Judea (Matthew 2:22-23), which is the region where Bethlehem was. In other words, Nazareth was a Plan B in Matthew's account, which would not be the case if they were actually residents of Nazareth who only went to Bethlehem for a census (as Luke claims), would it? The fact that in Matthew their Plan A was to return to the region where Bethlehem was, coupled with the previous mention of them being in a house there, certainly makes it sound like Matthew's account was written from the perspective that they were Bethlehem residents (as opposed to Luke's version where they were Nazareth residents only visiting Bethlehem for a census), does it not? Second, consider that Matthew says that when Herod realized that he had been "outwitted by the Magi" by them not coming back, he "gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under" (Matthew 2:16). Now think about it, Stranger. If there had been a census where a bunch of people from other areas had traveled to Bethlehem to register (as Luke claims), then why would Herod completely ignore that? Why would he only have children in the vicinity of Bethlehem killed? Why wouldn't he go through the census records and also put to death other children who had traveled to Bethlehem for the census? Clearly, if there had been a bunch of people coming to Bethlehem during this time and leaving, all on account of a census that Herod would have obviously known about, then why would he assume that just killing the children at Bethlehem would take care of the situation? Third, a more simple problem to your claim is that there is simply no Biblical support for it. It's something pulled out of thin air, with no mention of it nor even any allusion to it in the Biblical text. You're ignoring the flow of events in the texts and reading something completely foreign into it in an effort to eliminate a glaring contradiction. Now I have yet to verify the census issue to see if infact, the family would of had reason to go back to Jesus birth place or not. I will let you know if this holds up a little later. There are historical problems to the census and the timing of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke. Check out this video: Of course, most Christians would simply tell you that just like all of the gospels excel in the reason that they were written, the stories are often focused on the point that they are making, thus each account is only the highlights on which they are bringing out, and not the story in it's fullness. Thus, Luke just does not record all of the events that are recorded in Matthew, and by looking in detain at all gospels we can certainly conclude that this is true. Thus one can easily say Luke's account just simply does not tell the complete story in that time line just as though Luke tells things that Matthew does not, and this can be found and stated in every gospel. However, even though this is satisfactory for me, I wanted to see what else that I could find. This is the typical apologetics stance, and I used to hold to it also. And indeed, when dealing with different versions of the same story, it would be reasonable to expect there to be little differences in some of the details that are included. However, you would also expect that most of the details would be the same and there shouldn't be contradictions between the different details. Unfortunately for the Nativity stories, they simply don't hold up. Other than the characters Joseph, Mary and Jesus, and the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem when Mary was still a virgin, these two Nativities bear no resemblance whatsoever to each other, and even have a few contradictions between them (as I have previously detailed). Think about the differences in the stories (the overall picture): (1) In Matthew, Mary and Joseph appear to be residents of Bethlehem; in Luke, Mary and Joseph are residents of Nazareth. (2) In Matthew, an angel appears to Joseph but not Mary; in Luke, an angel appears to Mary but not Joseph. (3) In Matthew, there is no census; in Luke, the only reason Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem is for a census. (4) In Matthew, the family is in a house; in Luke, they are shut out because of no room in the inn, and Jesus is placed in a manger. (5) In Matthew, Magi come to see Jesus, but no shepherds; in Luke, shepherds come to see Jesus, but no Magi. (6) In Matthew, Herod has children killed in an attempt to eliminate Jesus; in Luke, there is no murder of children. (7) In Matthew, Mary and Joseph take Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod; in Luke, there is no trip to Egypt. (8) In Matthew, there is no trip to the Temple at Jerusalem; in Luke, Mary and Joseph take Jesus to the Temple. (9) In Matthew, Mary and Joseph go to Nazareth as a Plan B because of being warned to avoid the region that Bethlehem was in; in Luke, Mary and Joseph go directly back to Nazareth because that was already their residence. Now, think about that list, Stranger. Not each item individually, but the collective whole. Do you not see that you're actually dealing with two completely different stories? It really looks like the authors of Matthew and Luke both had the character names Mary, Joseph and Jesus, felt a need to have Jesus born in Bethlehem and yet have Jesus be a Nazarene. So, they each concocted stories out of these details, but the end result was two very different stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 First, I just want to give you the conclusion of the site mentioned above http://www.christianthinktank.com/infancyoff.html and should give you fair warning of its length. Quick Summary: * The initial objections are based too heavily on assumptions, omissions and alleged implications in the presenting texts, and cannot stand as currently stated. * Arguments from silence in historical narratives require (at least) that the author was attempting to give a full account and that the details omitted were absolutely central to the story line (as used by the author for his/her narrative aims). * Conservative bible commentators are not ‘embarrassed’ by the silences of Mt/Luke, and many offer plausible reconstructions of narrative intent (which explain the omissions’ roles in the ‘surface’ of the text). * The literary world (even today) knows of the telescoping and summarization techniques, and the ancient literary world both prescribed (Lucian) and widely used (many authors) these. * The implication of this for us is that we need to read ancient narratives more through thematic than chronological eyes—in cases of abridgment and telescoping. * The NT writers—as members of the class of ‘ancient writers’—used this technique heavily, too. [And so did the writers of the Hebrew Bible.] * The first major anti-Christian writers in history never seem to deny this principle—they never attack such usage as ‘where contradictions lie’. There are little-to-no attacks on chronology, and those that do appear do not conform to the pattern under study. * The most famous cases in the NT of telescoping are not ‘taken to task’ by any of the classically-trained ancient objectors, including Porphyry. * The single case of the emperor Julian—even though it is not fully in our pattern-- can be understood as due to his abnormal (and imbalanced) education. ===================================================================================================== The basics of this is the same as usual, that silence does not equal differences. However, the author goes into much more detail on this, and I almost think it could of been a book. http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/lk-apx01.html It is noteworthy that in 1905 a Greek papyrus was discovered in Egypt which mentions an imperial census taking place which mandated people to return to their homes: Gaius Vibius Maximus, the Prefect of Egypt, declares: The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their homes be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them. Knowing, however, that some of the people from the countryside are required by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before . . . Festus, the Cavalry Commander, whom I have appointed for this purpose, from whom those who have shown their presence to be necessary shall receive signed permits in accordance with this edict up to the 30th of the present month... Notice that this is said to be a "customary census." We are not told how long this custom had been in effect, but it apparently involved each person returning to his home. ================================== The main reason for posting this was just to lay down a slight possibility that in fact, the census in Luke's account may have consisted of more than a one year event, and the possibility that it was instead for years. If such is the case, then one could conclude that Joseph and his family did directly return to Nazareth and later returned to the Saviors birth town. This is nothing more than just another possibility. Luke 2:2 also seems to indicate this was the first, and not the end of such. ============ Bottom line on the question where Joseph and his family went after the rituals is quite simple. (1) first possibility, just like the first Christian skeptics had never brought up this question based on the fact that they themselves saw no contradiction in the timing or omissions, as this was common in the writings of the day, that is, not to always have the entire story by every author (just like today) it can be easily said that both accounts are than true, just not listed as all events in the exact order and/or the entire story (in this case, just not the whole story). This is simply an argument based on absence. Not on facts that state different things. (2) Also possible Joseph and his family did return right to their home town, but then came back later for an additional census a year later, and perhaps then decided to stay until they were directed otherwise. One valid statement from you was the word return is generally associated with a fairly direct implication. This can be a valid point with knowing the rest of the verses that use this word "return". http://bible.cc/search.php?q=returned I believe in here, though I have not looked every one up individually to verify, other examples of this style found in Luke can be verified. I will check into this further shortly. 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 residents of 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). This is exactly my point. Even with all four gospels we do not have a complete picture, just a more complete picture. Each gospel was trying to lay out the case for Jesus in a different way, thus all having some of the same stories, but many different ones as well. And even of the same stories, different aspects of that story are often found. The gospels were meant to spread the word of Jesus, not meant to tell us an entire historic time line and every event in this time line as like a history book is meant to do. Though I might add, even history books and accounts of recent history when based on one article often misses 75% or more of what the whole story really was. It is through many sources that we get a fuller picture, even of today, with the internet. How much more so in this day of age? In an effort to downplay the discrepancy about Mary and Joseph's initial residence, it is often argued that the claim of a contradiction is merely based on Matthew's silence about them being in Nazareth prior to Jesus' birth. However, if you look at the flow of events in Matthew, you see that there is more to contend with than simply the author starting with Bethlehem and having the family in a house. There is also the return from Egypt, where the author indicates that the reason the family settled in Nazareth was because Joseph learned that Herod's son Archelaus was reigning in Judea (Matthew 2:22-23), which is the region where Bethlehem was. In other words, Nazareth was a Plan B in Matthew's account, which would not be the case if they were actually residents of Nazareth who only went to Bethlehem for a census (as Luke claims), would it? The fact that in Matthew their Plan A was to return to the region where Bethlehem was, coupled with the previous mention of them being in a house there, certainly makes it sound like Matthew's account was written from the perspective that they were Bethlehem residents (as opposed to Luke's version where they were Nazareth residents only visiting Bethlehem for a census), does it not? You always amaze me with the amount if information you provide. I want to also address these issues, and if I have some luck, tonight or tomorrow I will have done so. Some great questions, Cits. I will try to find some logic soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I just noticed you posted Next post I will try to finish the first post as well as the latest reply you have just made. Watch yourself, your loading to much info in my head! Don't want my mind to explode, do you? LOL This has really been fun for me. The problem is there just might be too much fun ahead for me to handle. Keep up the good questions, bro. Have a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Of course, most Christians would simply tell you that just like all of the gospels excel in the reason that they were written, the stories are often focused on the point that they are making, thus each account is only the highlights on which they are bringing out, and not the story in it's fullness. Thus, Luke just does not record all of the events that are recorded in Matthew, and by looking in detain at all gospels we can certainly conclude that this is true. Thus one can easily say Luke's account just simply does not tell the complete story in that time line just as though Luke tells things that Matthew does not, and this can be found and stated in every gospel. It’s not that easy. The problem is that this apologetic doesn’t conform to the mission statement (Luke 1:1-4) that Luke gave in his gospel preamble. Luke states that he is writing his gospel to confirm the certainty of things that his reader had been taught. Luke never directs his reader to “see other gospels” for more information that he omitted. Luke never says anything about his reader needing to refer to other gospels for more details. The Gospel of Luke is presented as a stand alone record of “history”, and is not presented as an incomplete or partial accounting of events. If Luke’s reader had been taught history from Matthew or John, there would have been no confirmation for key events and information that Luke presented. In some areas, the information is contradictory. As Citsonga has pointed out, Luke and Matthew provide severely conflicting information about the birth of Jesus, the genealogy of Jesus, and the resurrection appearances of Jesus. What do you think of this? The sequence is as follows: Mary completed nine months of pregnancy and gave birth to Jesus in a manger (Luke 2:6), because there was no room in the Inn (verse 7). The shepherds were told by an angel (no star or wise men) to go to the birth with Mary and Joseph present (verse 16). The shepherds came and saw Christ's birth and left rejoicing. On the eighth day, Jesus was circumcised, and after forty days as the Law required (Leviticus 12:1-8), they left for Jerusalem to make an offering for the birth of Christ. After that, they returned to Galilee to their own city, Nazareth (Luke 2:39). This completes the actual birth of Christ. Wise men from the east (Magi) have yet to show up. About a YEAR or so later, Mary and Joseph were back in Bethlehem to complete the census. According to Luke, Mary was pregnant during the trip to Bethlehem for the census. However, I see you’ve tried to resolve the dilemma by stipulating that Joseph and Mary made multiple census trips from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Matthew says nothing about Joseph living in Nazareth prior to the death of Herod and places him there only after a journey to Egypt, which Luke never mentions at all, nor does Luke mention the Magi or the infant death decree. If Luke’s reader had been taught that the birth narrative of Jesus given in Matthew was history, where does Luke confirm the certainty of that teaching? Notice Matthew 2:1. Jesus was already born. The wise men were led by a star, and they came to King Herod the Great. Herod asked them what time did the star appear. It took the wise men or Magi, from the actual birth of Christ in Luke 2, OVER A YEAR before they reached Herod (A totally different time period from the birth of Jesus). Since the shepherds heralded the birth of Jesus right after he was born, how do you explain the complete ignorance of Herod over a year after the news was broadcast that a king messiah had been born? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 First, I just want to give you the conclusion of the site mentioned above http://www.christianthinktank.com/infancyoff.html and should give you fair warning of its length. Quick Summary: * The initial objections are based too heavily on assumptions, omissions and alleged implications in the presenting texts, and cannot stand as currently stated. False. The apologists are the ones using too much in the way of assumptions, claimed omissions and alleged implications. * Arguments from silence in historical narratives require (at least) that the author was attempting to give a full account and that the details omitted were absolutely central to the story line (as used by the author for his/her narrative aims). As I have already mentioned and you darn well know, there's more to it than simple omissions. The apologists are constantly making strawman attacks like this. * Conservative bible commentators are not ‘embarrassed’ by the silences of Mt/Luke, and many offer plausible reconstructions of narrative intent (which explain the omissions’ roles in the ‘surface’ of the text). False. They have not offered plausible reconstructions. They have only claimed to have done so, but there are problems with parts of their reconstructions. * The literary world (even today) knows of the telescoping and summarization techniques, and the ancient literary world both prescribed (Lucian) and widely used (many authors) these. Summarizing and contradicting are two different things, my friend. But enough about that silly list of nonsense. Let's take a look at what you yourself have said. (1) first possibility, just like the first Christian skeptics had never brought up this question based on the fact that they themselves saw no contradiction in the timing or omissions, as this was common in the writings of the day, that is, not to always have the entire story by every author (just like today) it can be easily said that both accounts are than true, just not listed as all events in the exact order and/or the entire story (in this case, just not the whole story). This is simply an argument based on absence. Not on facts that state different things. No, it's not just "an argument based on absence," as I've already pointed out previously. As far as whether or not these problems were pointed out early on or not, it really doesn't matter. If you want to claim that the Bible is inerrant and literal truth, then you have to contend with problems like these that arise, and it matters not when the problems were first noticed. (2) Also possible Joseph and his family did return right to their home town, but then came back later for an additional census a year later, and perhaps then decided to stay until they were directed otherwise. This is just nonsense. It's reading into the text something completely alien to the text, with no evidence whatsoever, in a desperate attempt to remedy the Bible from a glaring problem. You would not grant this creative license to someone trying to resolve glaring problems in other religious texts (such as the Koran), now would you? One valid statement from you was the word return is generally associated with a fairly direct implication. I don't recall saying anything about the word "return." I did, however, point out that Luke 2:39 says, "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth." The use of "when" is a clear indication that we don't have a huge time gap between verses 38 and 39 (which is where some apologists failingly attempt to insert the visit of the Magi and the trip to Egypt). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 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 residents of 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). This is exactly my point. Even with all four gospels we do not have a complete picture, just a more complete picture. Each gospel was trying to lay out the case for Jesus in a different way, thus all having some of the same stories, but many different ones as well. And even of the same stories, different aspects of that story are often found. The gospels were meant to spread the word of Jesus, not meant to tell us an entire historic time line and every event in this time line as like a history book is meant to do. Though I might add, even history books and accounts of recent history when based on one article often misses 75% or more of what the whole story really was. It is through many sources that we get a fuller picture, even of today, with the internet. How much more so in this day of age? There you go again with an argument that I already addressed right here: In an effort to downplay the discrepancy about Mary and Joseph's initial residence, it is often argued that the claim of a contradiction is merely based on Matthew's silence about them being in Nazareth prior to Jesus' birth. However, if you look at the flow of events in Matthew, you see that there is more to contend with than simply the author starting with Bethlehem and having the family in a house. There is also the return from Egypt, where the author indicates that the reason the family settled in Nazareth was because Joseph learned that Herod's son Archelaus was reigning in Judea (Matthew 2:22-23), which is the region where Bethlehem was. In other words, Nazareth was a Plan B in Matthew's account, which would not be the case if they were actually residents of Nazareth who only went to Bethlehem for a census (as Luke claims), would it? The fact that in Matthew their Plan A was to return to the region where Bethlehem was, coupled with the previous mention of them being in a house there, certainly makes it sound like Matthew's account was written from the perspective that they were Bethlehem residents (as opposed to Luke's version where they were Nazareth residents only visiting Bethlehem for a census), does it not? You always amaze me with the amount if information you provide. I want to also address these issues, and if I have some luck, tonight or tomorrow I will have done so. Some great questions, Cits. I will try to find some logic soon. So why even bother trying to attack the "argument from silence" strawman when I already specifically addressed it here regarding this portion of the Nativity narratives? Beyond that, other contradictions have been discussed or mentioned recently, such as the Judas ones, the resurrection appearances and the genealogies. As I've stated previously, the problem isn't about a few "omitted details," it's about contradictions between included details, as well as overall pictures of completely different stories (as these Nativities are). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 How did Judas die? Using the same first two sites as given in the last post, home page of biblos.com and falling γενόμενος genomenos 1096 to come into being, to happen, to become from a prim. root gen- headlong, πρηνὴς prēnēs 4248 headlong from a modified form of pro he burst open ἐλάκησεν elakēsen 2997 to crack noisily from a prim. root lak-, see lakaó and all πάντα panta 3956 all, every a prim. word his intestines σπλάγχνα splanchna 4698 the inward parts (heart, liver, lungs, etc.), fig. the emotions of uncertain origin gushed ἐξεχύθη exechuthē 1632b to pour out, fig. to bestow from the same as ekcheó out. NOW THIS IS ACTS and hanged ἀπήγξατο apēnxato 519 to strangle, hang oneself from apo and agchó (to press, strangle) himself. AND THIS ONE IN MATTHEW These are what seem to be the same: Falling, or hanging. Same principle if implied to represent intentional fall. To crack noisily, easily representing a case hanging. The differences: the spilling of the intestines on the ground. I don't see where you get "falling" or "to crack noisily" out of the hanging in Matthew. As far as the differences, you didn't mention the obvious "hanging." Again, I see no reason to believe that this could not have happened after jumping (hanging, falling) off the ledge and perhaps breaking his neck, and the rope breaking, then falling on a stick or tree or sharp rock that could have made this a possibility. Again, even if one believes this could not happen, certainly any body left hanging would take no time to decay. The issues here for me are (1) probability and (2) overall picture. First, it is true that it's not impossible for the scenario you mention to have happened. This was basically the "resolution" I believed when I was a Christian. But what is the probability of someone falling head first from a position of hanging himself (with a rope around the neck)? Second, and more importantly, is the overall picture of Acts supposedly being a sequel to Luke, and Luke repeatedly contradicting Matthew in their common stories where they didn't copy from Mark. In other words, there are so many conflicting details between Matthew and Luke/Acts that it becomes abundantly clear that they cannot be seen as reliable sources of information. Thus, it seems most probable that we really are dealing with a contradiction between the two regarding the method of Judas' death. Beyond that, if Acts was describing what happened after Judas hanged himself, then why wouldn't the author mention the hanging? And don't fall back on that "argument from silence" strawman, because we're not talking about a menial side detail that could be reasonably overlooked, but rather a primary detail that would be crucial to any account of Judas' death. I do not see this is a different account, just a extended version of the account. Of course, you see what you want to see. The last "problem". Why was the field called the field of blood? 18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. So in Acts, why was it called the field of blood? 4Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. 5And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. 6And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. 7And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 8Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. And how about Matthew? In both cases it was said to be called the field of blood based on the fact blood money was used to purchase this field, the money given to Judas to betray Jesus Christ. Acts doesn't talk about "blood money," it gives the gory account of Judas spilling open and then says that that's the reason the field was called "Field of Blood." Strangers were buried here, but that is not why it was called the field of blood. That's debatable. It looks to me like that's exactly what Matthew is saying is the reason for the name "Field of Blood." Matthew does mention the blood money, though, so there may be a slight possibility of that being intended as the reason, but it really doesn't appear to be. Either way, it's a different reason from what is given in Acts. Now I really don't expect to convince those with a pre-determined mind set (sound like some else around here -- snicker) but if an open mind is indeed used, can one not see all of these things being at the very least, possible, even if it does not mean there can be no other options? I consider myself open minded. If I wasn't, then I never would have changed my views. And my mindset is not a predetermined one, it's the polar opposite of the predetermined mindset I had when I started studying the Bible. I let the text speak for itself and followed the evidence where it lead. My "mindset" is an honest assessment of the evidence. You're still operating with your predetermined mindset and missing the overall picture. Keep trying to put the puzzle pieces together, and eventually you'll probably also realize how futile it is. You Christians tend to do so, as I also used to do when I was a Christian. However, the various books of the Bible were not written as one single unit, they were written as separate scrolls by different people of different views for different purposes over a long period of time. They were a few selections out of many other various religious texts, only to later be cherry-picked to be canonized by the Council of Nicea. The rational approach is to look at each book as it was originally written, a work that was separate from the other books. Look at the flow of each individual book, look at its own text and try to understand what it is saying. Don't try to force it to mean something entirely different from what it says simply because some other individual wrote some other book that says something different. In other words, be honest with the text. Now can one truly be honest with the text if taken each individually when they were meant to retell in part some of the same stories to bring a point across. You are making it sound as though no NT writers knew of any other NT writers or their stories, though certain books, like Acts, were to be a historical account of the church establishment and spread, thus starting with the parts of the story of Jesus. How can you separate such cases? It would be like separating school history books from actual events! OH, Wait, that already happens! My bad. LOL Point being, you do have some valid thought on this, but this thought line has no place when a precise book was written to tell the events that unfolded at the conclusion of the four gospels. Acts was never meant to be understood apart from the story of Jesus, recorded in the gospels, but I do not think that I really need to tell you that. No, I never said that none of them knew any of the other works. In fact, I've already stated a few times that it's pretty clear that the authors of Matthew and Luke had at least some version of Mark, because they copy from it extensively. In addition, the opening of the book of Acts makes it appear as though it was intended as a sequel to Luke. What I was trying to get at is that there was a lot of stuff circulating, and different people would have had different texts available to them. Not all of them would have had all of the texts that ended up in the Bible (some weren't even written yet when others were written). It was not all one big book like we currently have in the Bible. In other words, be sensible about it. Don't assume that all of the Bible texts were written with complete knowledge of all of the others, because they weren't. Given that Matthew and Luke repeatedly conflict with each other (usually when telling stories not also in Mark, which they copied from), it makes the most sense to understand them in light of the overwhelming probability that their authors wrote without knowledge of each other's work. And if Acts is a continuation of Luke and written by the same author (as is the claim), then it also makes sense that Acts was likely written without knowledge of the text of Matthew. One major flaw in Christians' thinking is the assumption that everything must have gone down exactly as written in the Bible. However, if these were only stories that developed over time without much or any real historical merit to them, then that whole foundation crumbles. If they were only developing stories and the authors of Matthew and Luke didn't have each other's versions of the stories, then the results would understandably be quite like what we do in fact see. The big picture, my friend, does not support the Christian view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Of course, most Christians would simply tell you that just like all of the gospels excel in the reason that they were written, the stories are often focused on the point that they are making, thus each account is only the highlights on which they are bringing out, and not the story in it's fullness. Thus, Luke just does not record all of the events that are recorded in Matthew, and by looking in detain at all gospels we can certainly conclude that this is true. Thus one can easily say Luke's account just simply does not tell the complete story in that time line just as though Luke tells things that Matthew does not, and this can be found and stated in every gospel. It’s not that easy. The problem is that this apologetic doesn't conform to the mission statement (Luke 1:1-4) that Luke gave in his gospel preamble. Luke states that he is writing his gospel to confirm the certainty of things that his reader had been taught. Luke never directs his reader to "see other gospels" for more information that he omitted. Luke never says anything about his reader needing to refer to other gospels for more details. The Gospel of Luke is presented as a stand alone record of "history", and is not presented as an incomplete or partial accounting of events. If Luke's reader had been taught history from Matthew or John, there would have been no confirmation for key events and information that Luke presented. In some areas, the information is contradictory. As Citsonga has pointed out, Luke and Matthew provide severely conflicting information about the birth of Jesus, the genealogy of Jesus, and the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Excellent point there about the preamble. Let's quote it for emphasis: Luke 1 [1] Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, [2] just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. [3] With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, [4] so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Leaving out all the details in Matthew and leaving no time available for the trip to Egypt (or leaving out a second trip to Bethlehem, as in the Stranger's silly reconciliation attempt) doesn't sound at all like an "orderly account" of one who had "carefully investigated everything." Also of interest in this preamble is the way it basically conflicts with the Christian doctrine of divine inspiration. The author clearly sees himself, through careful investigation, to be the source of the information in the book. So much for God being the source! Notice Matthew 2:1. Jesus was already born. The wise men were led by a star, and they came to King Herod the Great. Herod asked them what time did the star appear. It took the wise men or Magi, from the actual birth of Christ in Luke 2, OVER A YEAR before they reached Herod (A totally different time period from the birth of Jesus). Since the shepherds heralded the birth of Jesus right after he was born, how do you explain the complete ignorance of Herod over a year after the news was broadcast that a king messiah had been born? Another good point! Luke specifically says that the shepherds "spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child" (Luke 2:17). Stranger, I hope you're starting to see how futile it is to take the bible as absolute, literal, inerrant truth. Trying to fit the pieces together leads to problem after problem, despite the apologists' deceptive claim to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 To Citsonga... It's said that you can, "Set a thief to catch a thief". So I bow out of this thread and I defer to you. As an ex-Bible Inerrantist, you are better suited to the task of dealing with the Stranger than I am. When I was a Christian, I was of the Evangelical variety. For me, the Bible was the inspired word of God, but it never had to be perfect. In fact, I took it's imperfections as a sign that we see God, 'thru a glass, darkly' and not perfectly. I was happy to believe that the only perfect thing in this world was the life, death, sacrifice and re-birth of Jesus. Since he never wrote anything down and imperfect men did, I never had any problem with the imperfections and contradictions in the Bible. Imperfect men wrote down scripture long before Jesus and then did so again, decades after his departure, so why shouldn't their imperfect grasp of God's word be reflected in the obvious inconsistencies of the texts. Naturally I was fooling myself - as most, if not all ex-Christian's have, at one time or another. Anyway, that was then and this is now. Go get him! I hate to see you go, man! Though I didn't comment much on your posts, I did enjoy reading them and you made some good points. To Citsonga - Please relay this to the Stranger... Please tell him the following; 1. Keep your Bible. 2. "6. You will not conform to any agreed standard of linguistic logic, but always try to subvert the meaning of anything to meet your Inerrantist criteria." The Stranger has completely misunderstood the meaning of the above point and so, everything he has written in answer to it, is a waste of time. The agreed standard of linguistic logic I was referring to was his personal 'problem'. The 'problem' is his a priori assumption of the Bible's inerrancy. Until he drops this assumption, anything he writes, anything he links to and any points he makes will be... A WASTE OF TIME. The only person he will be persuading is himself. Ooops! Sorry! I forgot that he's already made his mind up - so he can't be persuaded of anything different. I'll re-phrase that. The only thing he can do with his responses (until he drops his a priori assumption) is to reinforce the dogmatic certainty that already exists in his closed mind. 3. Please tell him not to bother replying to this message. He and I are no longer in direct dialog. However, I reserve the right to make relevant observations about this thread, which I will be monitoring as it develops. Thanks, BAA. LOL. Well, I guess he's seen what you've said (he says he still luvs ya). I fully agree that the inherent problem is the unwarranted assumption of inerrancy. For the inerrantist, though, it's not seen as a problem, it's seen as accepting "God's Word" for what it supposedly is. They believe they're trusting God, when in reality they're partially trusting ancient authors, editors and copyists, and they're partially trusting their own mental gymnastics at reconciling problems, even when they have to distort the text to get their desired results. Anyway, have a Happy New Year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I hate to see you go, man! Though I didn't comment much on your posts, I did enjoy reading them and you made some good points. LOL. Well, I guess he's seen what you've said (he says he still luvs ya). I fully agree that the inherent problem is the unwarranted assumption of inerrancy. For the inerrantist, though, it's not seen as a problem, it's seen as accepting "God's Word" for what it supposedly is. They believe they're trusting God, when in reality they're partially trusting ancient authors, editors and copyists, and they're partially trusting their own mental gymnastics at reconciling problems, even when they have to distort the text to get their desired results. Anyway, have a Happy New Year! Hey Citsonga! I'm not departing this thread, just cutting the comm-link with the Stranger. Ok? U and I and anyone else are A-ok, when it comes to dialog. Have a good one yourself! BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 ...Let's quote it for emphasis: Luke 1 [1] Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, [2] just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. [3] With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, [4] so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Leaving out all the details in Matthew and leaving no time available for the trip to Egypt (or leaving out a second trip to Bethlehem, as in the Stranger's silly reconciliation attempt) doesn't sound at all like an "orderly account" of one who had "carefully investigated everything." Also of interest in this preamble is the way it basically conflicts with the Christian doctrine of divine inspiration. The author clearly sees himself, through careful investigation, to be the source of the information in the book. So much for God being the source! For me, the preamble was a crushing blow to inerrancy. If someone had been taught history from Matthew, Luke doesn't confirm it and gives an entirely different version. Matthew is the only gospel that mentions the mass resurrection of the saints, another example of embellishment that makes his "history" dubious at best. Added to that are the constant NT complaints about false teachers and false gospels. So much for the perfect harmony of the NT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 For me, the preamble was a crushing blow to inerrancy. If someone had been taught history from Matthew, Luke doesn't confirm it and gives an entirely different version. Matthew is the only gospel that mentions the mass resurrection of the saints, another example of embellishment that makes his "history" dubious at best. Added to that are the constant NT complaints about false teachers and false gospels. So much for the perfect harmony of the NT. Several years ago I wrote a long letter to a friend of mine that detailed quite a few problems I had with the Bible. One thing in the letter was the issue of divine inspiration. For the heck of it, I thought I'd post that portion of the letter here. Enjoy! DIVINE INSPIRATION I have made several references to the issue of "divine inspiration." Here I would like to take a closer look at the concept. Some Christians believe that God Almighty dictated every word of the Bible. Others insist that God dictated the content, while allowing the authors to express it in their own styles. Either way, the doctrine of "divine inspiration" suggests that the message itself has come directly from an omniscient God. However, does this belief have any validity? Is it even claimed by the authors of the books in the Bible that they were divinely inspired throughout the writing process? Of course, anyone could claim to be divinely inspired, so such a claim would not be proof that it is true. However, if the authors themselves had considered their own writings to be divinely inspired, wouldn't they have made mention of it? Ironically, while most of the books of the Bible do contain quotations that are attributed to God (especially the "prophetic" books), the Bible books are otherwise devoid of claiming divine inspiration on themselves. Throughout all the narrated stories, psalms of praise, and the New Testament doctrinal teachings, there is a stunning silence about being inspired by God. With this in mind, let's take a look at some interesting statements that do bear on the issue of divine inspiration. Luke's Gospel Luke's Gospel opens with the following introduction: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4) Here the author is giving his reason for writing his "account." He claims to have "carefully investigated everything from the beginning," therefore making him personally qualified "to write an orderly account" to the "most excellent Theophilus," in order that he "may know the certainty of the things" which he was "taught." Note that, in the midst of taking credit for investigating and writing the account himself, Luke never once mentions that the information is coming from God. This implies that the author did not consider his "account" to be divine. He considered himself, with the help of "eyewitnesses and servants of the word," to be the source of the writing. Paul's Epistles The letters called epistles that are attributed to Paul are fairly consistent in the way that they open. Of the thirteen, nine contain a reference to his apostleship in the very first verse (Rom 1:1; I Cor 1:1; II Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; I Tim 1:1; II Tim 1:1; Tit 1:1). Of the four that do not begin with a specific reference to apostleship, one makes mention of it later in the letter (I Thessalonians 2:6), and two others allude to it with different terminology ("servants of Christ" in Philippians 1:1 and "prisoner of Christ" in Philemon 1:1). When taking into consideration the fact that Paul never once claims that his letters are divinely inspired, his consistent appeal to his apostleship is clearly meant to establish his own authority. In other words, the reason he expected his churches to adhere to what he was writing was because of his apostleship, and not because God was dictating what he was writing. In fact, Paul twice even articulated that he was giving commands that were not from "the Lord." We read, "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her" (I Corinthians 7:12), and, "Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy" (7:25). Interestingly, not only do these verses indicate that Paul was presenting his own views rather than something communicated by God, but the second one clearly establishes the fact that Paul simply considered himself to be a "trustworthy" authority for making such a "judgment." Commentators typically respond to this problem by suggesting that Paul only meant that he wasn't quoting Jesus, whereas in the same chapter he also gives a command that is attributed to "the Lord" (I Corinthians 7:10). That is somewhat true in that the command there (7:10), while not stated exactly the same way in the gospels, does represent some of the teaching attributed to Jesus. Appealing to this, though, is essentially meaningless to the matter, because we're dealing with Paul taking credit himself for the commands, appealing to his own authority. Regardless of whether or not a loose quote appears at one point, Paul's articulations (7:12, 25) clearly indicate that his writings were not (at least not in entirety) divinely inspired. There are a couple other interesting statements made in Paul's letters. We read, "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)" (I Corinthians 1:14-16). If Paul's writing had been communicated by an omniscient God, then why didn't he know whether or not he had baptized anyone else? The fact that he couldn't recall that information indicates that he was relying on his own memory, not an omniscient God. Similarly, we read, "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know -- God knows" (II Corinthians 12:2). Just like the previous verse, if Paul's writing had been communicated by an omniscient God, then why didn't he know whether or not it was a real experience or just a vision? Again, this indicates that Paul was relying on his own perception, not an omniscient God. There is one place in Paul's writings where he mentions divine inspiration, saying, "All Scripture is God-breathed" (II Timothy 3:16; "inspiration of God" in the KJV). It is not uncommon for this verse to be mentioned by proponents of the belief that the Bible is divinely inspired. However, there are some very important things to keep in mind. First, at the time of this writing, the only canonized "Scripture" was the Hebrew Bible, which is the Old Testament. John's gospel (and possibly the other three gospels), Revelation and some of the other epistles had not even been written yet, so there was not a canonized New Testament. Second, in the preceding verse Paul mentions "how from infancy you [Timothy] have known the holy Scriptures" (II Timothy 3:15), and at the time of Timothy's infancy even fewer (if any at all) of the documents that would eventually comprise the New Testament had been written. As such, the "Scripture" that Paul is referring to here does not include the New Testament or Paul's own writings. Paul is merely indicating that he believes that the Old Testament was divinely inspired. In light of this, II Timothy 3:16 does not even claim that the entire Bible is divinely inspired. As a side note, though, even if it did claim such, the claim itself would not be proof that it is true. Along those same lines, the fact that Paul does claim that the Hebrew Scriptures were inspired does not prove that they were. As noted above, the narrated stories and psalms of praise in the Old Testament don't claim to be divinely inspired, so the concept of divine inspiration has been imposed upon it. Peter's Epistles The epistles attributed to Peter also did not claim to be directly revealed by God. Just like Paul, both of Peter's epistles begin with an appeal to his apostleship (I Peter 1:1; II Peter 1:1), thus establishing his own authority. There is a comment, though, that often comes up in discussions about divine inspiration. We read, "…our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (II Peter 3:15b-16). By drawing such a parallel between "all" of Paul's letters and the "other Scriptures," one can reasonably conclude that Peter was calling Paul's letters "Scripture." Peter's comment, therefore, implies that he considered Paul's writings to be inspired by God. However, as has been shown above, Paul twice admitted that he was giving commands that were not from "the Lord" (I Corinthians 7:12, 25), twice admitted that he was unsure about what he was talking about (I Corinthians 1:14-16; II Corinthians 12:2), and repeatedly appealed to his own apostolic authority rather than divine inspiration (Romans 1:1; etc). As such, Peter's comment about Paul's letters seems to be imposing the concept of divine inspiration on texts that were not divinely inspired. In turn, Peter's inaccurate comment regarding Paul's writings and his appeal to his own apostolic authority rather than divine inspiration leads to the conclusion that Peter's epistles also were not divinely inspired. Others So much of the Bible is written as mere narrative, with no claim of divine inspiration, and sounding like nothing more than ancient people's human attempt to write down their perceived history, that it is hard to imagine it as being anything more than that. That is especially true when taking into consideration other issues like the ones raised in this letter. But, then, what about the quotes that are attributed to God? When considering such drastic problems as the ones in the Bible that I have pointed out, how can we trust it even when it does claim to be reporting the direct word of God? In addition, what about works from other faiths claiming to be from God? Christians assert that the Bible is so accurate that it has to be the truth, and therefore the others must not be true, but it is clear from the issues I've raised here (and others that I haven't mentioned) that the Bible is not as accurate as Christians claim. As such, that mode of authenticating God's word is invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Pappy Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 For the heck of it, I thought I'd post that portion of the letter here. Enjoy! Thanks for posting your commentary ... enjoyable read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 No, your conclusion doesn't have valid evidence. As has just been shown, the very definition of the word for "acquire" includes "purchase, buy," which is the clear implication when money is used in the transaction, and various Bible translations render the term "purchased." In other words, YOU'RE WRONG. Just admit it, Stranger. It's no big deal, we've all been wrong before, and I even used to take the same approach to the Bible as you do, so I was equally wrong in the past. I've been able to admit that I was wrong and adjust my views according to the evidence. Can you do the same? Just answer me one last question regarding these scriptures. Does the setting, meaning the people in the story, and what they are already assumed to know, and the placement of the book of Acts, highlighting the conclusion of the gospel story and events in a quick few statements, and again accounting the fact Acts says the bulk of the people living in Jerusalem already heard/ knew about the story of Judas, and again those with him (Peter at the time of his speech) being there during this event, mean anything at all to the conclusion of the text? Again, do we not now at times use the same style of writing? I will let your reply be the last for these verses. (Matthew and Acts (Judas) discussion) (1) In an effort to downplay the discrepancy about Mary and Joseph's initial residence, it is often argued that the claim of a contradiction is merely based on Matthew's silence about them being in Nazareth prior to Jesus' birth. However, if you look at the flow of events in Matthew, you see that there is more to contend with than simply the author starting with Bethlehem and having the family in a house.(2) There is also the return from Egypt, where the author indicates that the reason the family settled in Nazareth was because Joseph learned that Herod's son Archelaus was reigning in Judea (Matthew 2:22-23), which is the region where Bethlehem was. In other words, Nazareth was a Plan B in Matthew's account, which would not be the case if they were actually residents of Nazareth who only went to Bethlehem for a census (as Luke claims), would it? The fact that in Matthew their Plan A was to return to the region where Bethlehem was, coupled with the previous mention of them being in a house there, certainly makes it sound like Matthew's account was written from the perspective that they were Bethlehem residents (as opposed to Luke's version where they were Nazareth residents only visiting Bethlehem for a census), does it not? (1) Again, just the absence of part of the story from one, and the addition from the other. No differences here. (2) (LUKE) 4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (MATTHEW) notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: 23And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: So your assumption is, because Matthew did not call Nazareth Joseph's home town, that Luke cannot be correct. First, how long did Joseph live in Nazareth? Nobody knows. We only know at the point before they had to leave for the census that Nazareth was Josephs home town, or, the region in which he lived. Remember, both books were written for the reader, meaning, since Matthew had not told the city of where Joseph was residing before hand, then certainly, just as you have stated, the reader would not be aware of this fact, before or after reading Matthew. One book does not say something different from the other, but instead, you are just implying what the writer meant, and/or are putting meaning and text in there that is not found. Now have I not already been accused of this? Beyond this, we don't know for sure what the other author knew, though it is likely that Luke had a good idea of the story for sure. Is already discussed, Luke may or may not have had a copy of Matthew. Even if he did, all of the authors wrote what they deemed most important. Now again, in Matthews account, they have been running to many different cities, and even if they were living in Nazareth at one point, it does not mean that they had to be life long residents there. If in fact, they did return right to Nazareth after the rituals, but a while later decided to move to Bethlehem, or even just went back to gather a couple more things and say good by to family (before the wise men of the east came), could not Nazareth been a plan A, and because this plan did not work, they went back to where they lived before the birth of Christ? I think we conclude that with these two books (Luke and Matthew) we have the entire history and events in order, but that is far from the case. Even with just these two books, we really know very little about all of the details, and all of the other things that may have happened or played out. Conclusion: When we read into the text with something we only assume it implies, with only knowing a fraction of the whole story, it is to easy to think we have it right when in reality we could be way way off. Second, consider that Matthew says that when Herod realized that he had been "outwitted by the Magi" by them not coming back, he "gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under" (Matthew 2:16). Now think about it, Stranger. If there had been a census where a bunch of people from other areas had traveled to Bethlehem to register (as Luke claims), then why would Herod completely ignore that? Why would he only have children in the vicinity of Bethlehem killed? Why wouldn't he go through the census records and also put to death other children who had traveled to Bethlehem for the census? Clearly, if there had been a bunch of people coming to Bethlehem during this time and leaving, all on account of a census that Herod would have obviously known about, then why would he assume that just killing the children at Bethlehem would take care of the situation? It is really a little less complicated than it would seem. First, Herod heard of this when? Somewhere between around a year after Christ was born. At this time, the wise men were sent to Bethlehem. This was well after the census so the census plays no part in this case. Herold knew that they were looking for Jesus in Bethlehem. Now he also learned that he was deceived a fairly short time after wards seeming that the two cities were so close. Thus, it could of been a year and a half after Jesus birth when this all came about. Main point. Different timing. The census was already over. Third, a more simple problem to your claim is that there is simply no Biblical support for it. It's something pulled out of thin air, with no mention of it nor even any allusion to it in the Biblical text. You're ignoring the flow of events in the texts and reading something completely foreign into it in an effort to eliminate a glaring contradiction. So you can add assumptions, but I cannot? LOL There is allot in the stories of Gods word that we do not have. Therefore assumptions on either end is just that, assumptions, with mine being no better than yours, my friend. There are historical problems to the census and the timing of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke. Check out this video Now I will get to this a little later. I have already read many of these articles on both sides during my verification of a repeated census. I will continue shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 This is the typical apologetics stance, and I used to hold to it also. And indeed, when dealing with different versions of the same story, it would be reasonable to expect there to be little differences in some of the details that are included. However, you would also expect that most of the details would be the same and there shouldn't be contradictions between the different details. Unfortunately for the Nativity stories, they simply don't hold up. Other than the characters Joseph, Mary and Jesus, and the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem when Mary was still a virgin, these two Nativities bear no resemblance whatsoever to each other, and even have a few contradictions between them (as I have previously detailed). What one does have to keep in mind, is that Luke generally gives the account from the time Joseph left Nazareth to go to the census of Bethlehem, to the time just after the rituals were performed on Jesus. Matthew starts around one year or more after this account. There fore being different time frames, it is easy to see why there are different accounts. In fact, it would not make any sense if the stories were the same, but different time lines. Give me just a few minutes here friend, and I will be back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Think about the differences in the stories (the overall picture): (1) In Matthew, Mary and Joseph appear to be residents of Bethlehem; in Luke, Mary and Joseph are residents of Nazareth. (2) In Matthew, an angel appears to Joseph but not Mary; in Luke, an angel appears to Mary but not Joseph. (3) In Matthew, there is no census; in Luke, the only reason Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem is for a census. (4) In Matthew, the family is in a house; in Luke, they are shut out because of no room in the inn, and Jesus is placed in a manger. (5) In Matthew, Magi come to see Jesus, but no shepherds; in Luke, shepherds come to see Jesus, but no Magi. (6) In Matthew, Herod has children killed in an attempt to eliminate Jesus; in Luke, there is no murder of children. (7) In Matthew, Mary and Joseph take Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod; in Luke, there is no trip to Egypt. (8) In Matthew, there is no trip to the Temple at Jerusalem; in Luke, Mary and Joseph take Jesus to the Temple. (9) In Matthew, Mary and Joseph go to Nazareth as a Plan B because of being warned to avoid the region that Bethlehem was in; in Luke, Mary and Joseph go directly back to Nazareth because that was already their residence. (1) Already talked about. Left Nazareth to go to Bethlehem, once rituals over, may have returned shortly to Nazareth, but than stayed in Bethlehem. Again, Matthew picks up at least a year after the birth of Jesus. At this point, they were living in Bethlehem. (2) Different times, different accounts. Is there one that I am missing? (3)Again, Matthew does not start his story until at least a year after the census, there fore does not include it. A different starting point, not a difference in the story. (4)Again, different time frame. Luke account gives the birth of Christ, while Matthews account starts at least a year later. (5) Shepherds came right after Jesus was born, the wise men at least a year after the fact. (6) Luke stops this part of his story right after the rituals are performed, while Matthew carries on from this point, at least, in part. (7) See above answer (8) The temple visit had already happened if you are referring to the rituals. Again, this happened a year before the start of Matthew. If referring to when Jesus was twelve, it is just a matter of one telling a story that the other did not. According to OT laws, they had to go, at least one of them, to the temple, or Jerusalem, at least twice a year, but three times was more likely. This would not have been an uncommon trip. (9) Again, they may have went straight back to Nazareth like recorded in Luke, but if so, they did not stay very long. In the latter part of your statement, the return, or going to Nazareth was years later. Now, think about that list, Stranger. Not each item individually, but the collective whole. Do you not see that you're actually dealing with two completely different stories? Different stories? No. Different times? Yes. It really looks like the authors of Matthew and Luke both had the character names Mary, Joseph and Jesus, felt a need to have Jesus born in Bethlehem and yet have Jesus be a Nazarene. So, they each concocted stories out of these details, but the end result was two very different stories. Same story, but both places had to be to fulfill prophecy, but you already know we will get into that a little later. It’s not that easy.(1)The problem is that this apologetic doesn’t conform to the mission statement (Luke 1:1-4) that Luke gave in his gospel preamble. Luke states that he is writing his gospel to confirm the certainty of things that his reader had been taught. (2) Luke never directs his reader to “see other gospels” for more information that he omitted. Luke never says anything about his reader needing to refer to other gospels for more details. The Gospel of Luke is presented as a stand alone record of “history”, and is not presented as an incomplete or partial accounting of events. If Luke’s reader had been taught history from Matthew or John, there would have been no confirmation for key events and information that Luke presented. (3) In some areas, the information is contradictory. As Citsonga has pointed out, Luke and Matthew provide severely conflicting information about the birth of Jesus, the genealogy of Jesus, and the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Thank you Centauuri for replying. Luke 1 (Amplified Bible) Luke 1 1SINCE [as is well known] many have undertaken to put in order and draw up a [thorough] narrative of the surely established deeds which have been accomplished and fulfilled in and among us, 2Exactly as they were handed down to us by those who from the official] beginning [of Jesus' ministry] were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word [that is, of the doctrine concerning the attainment through Christ of salvation in the kingdom of God], 3It seemed good and desirable to me, [and so I have determined] also after having searched out diligently and followed all things closely and traced accurately the course from the highest to the minutest detail from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4[My purpose is] that you may know the full truth and understand with certainty and security against error the accounts (histories) and doctrines of the faith of which you have been informed and in which you have been orally instructed. ================ (1) Things to note: It was known that many had already written or was writing of these accounts before Luke was completed or written. Secondly, maybe that is why Luke starts with Joseph and their home town, as to show the starting point in which none of the others did. Possibly then, people already knowing the account of Matthew. (2) Some of this is true, but again, Luke already writes that many stories of this are already out there, Luke's main intent was to verify with perhaps some of the missing links, or to at least make sure that Theophilus knew that these accounts were true and was not different from one another. He never claimed it to be a complete historic account. He also never planned for it to be read by anyone but Theophilus. In saying that, Luke already knew that other accounts were already out there, and read. He wanted to make sure that they could all be verified as true. (3) We can get into these issues a little later on, my friend. Matthew says nothing about Joseph living in Nazareth prior to the death of Herod and places him there only after a journey to Egypt, which Luke never mentions at all, nor does Luke mention the Magi or the infant death decree.If Luke’s reader had been taught that the birth narrative of Jesus given in Matthew was history, where does Luke confirm the certainty of that teaching? Again, different times, different focuses. For the latter part, I am not completely sure of the question. Luke does not confirm many points made by the other authors. His intent was not to make the biggest book, and just copy everything else and fill in the blanks. Since the shepherds heralded the birth of Jesus right after he was born, how do you explain the complete ignorance of Herod over a year after the news was broadcast that a king messiah had been born? Just like in His ministry, Jesus did not want word to get out that fast. A revelation by an angel (+ some) was given to the shepherds. There is no word that they went to tell Herold. In fact, even the others in Jerusalem did not know about this yet. This was not a world wide known event at the time. Even Mary was yet sure of everything that was happening, therefore pondered it in her heart. It was revealed and known to those God revealed it to. 25And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. 26And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 36And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; 37And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. ========== Now we do see at least two that knew for sure, and others with out doubt were told, but how many, and how much of it was believed, that is another issue. When the wise men came, perhaps these men demanded or got more attention of these issues. This is a valid question, and I cannot completely explain it away. It does seem that some sort of word would have been out. Perhaps it was a credibility issue, and they did not take it with much thought or concern until the request was made from these wise men. ( I am going to do a drop more research into that now, but don't know if I will find anything new.) I will get to the rest shortly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Pappy Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 It is really a little less complicated than it would seem. First, Herod heard of this when? Somewhere between around a year after Christ was born. On the contrary ... it is quite complicated, or shall we say - conflicting? Herod died in 4 BC, so before going on about the inerrancy of the Bible, why don't we clear up how he could have been around a year after Jesus was supposedly born? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts