Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nonsense. The Bible is a wonderfully accurate historical document, if you are able to have an open mind about it. But an open mind has never been one of your strong suits, has it?
Meaning if you ignore empirical research that might discredit it .
Then how do you explain that Mark has no nativity, John pretty much denies that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and Luke and Matthew have different and contradictory stories? At best the 'eyewitnesses' were making their stories up. At worst (or more probable) Matthew and Luke were.
Yep.
You are wasting your time here. He will simply twist his opinion to meet his answer.
Well when you are copying from a prior source it's going to be easy to harmonize things, no?
The fact that the accounts are not identical would seem to indicate that they weren't copying. It's funny...one person whines because they are not identical, others whine because they are too similar. Honestly...I have no idea what you people want.
Luke
2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.
2:40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
Matt
2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
2:19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 2:20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
Herod the Great (c. 74–4 BC), client king of Judea who rebuilt the Second Temple (in Jerusalem) into Herod's Temple
The fact that the accounts are not identical would seem to indicate that they weren't copying. It's funny...one person whines because they are not identical, others whine because they are too similar. Honestly...I have no idea what you people want.
Yeah well, pretty much every new testament critic disagrees with you on that one.
Well, Mark has no Nativity so I can't give it. John 7 40 -43 has Jesus being debunked because he comes from Galilee and the scripture says the Messiah must come from Bethlehem, the city where David was. But apart from Jesus not responding, John omits to add a parenthetical passage 'But they knew not that Jesus was for sure born in Bethlehem, so there' and the conclusion is that so far as John knew, he wasn't.
Quote:
Different perspectives, contradictory, no.
Contradictory. If only that Luke has Joseph as a Galilean travelling (absurdly and pointlessly) to Bethlehem to register for the tax (which sure looks like the one in 6 AD when Rome took over Judea) and returning a week or so after the birth and temple rites, whereas Matthew has them as Judeans living in Bethlehem a year or more after the birth (because Herod enquires when the star appeared and then targets two year olds and under) when they flee to Egypt until Herod dies in 4 BC and then they return to their home - not in Galilee, but in Judea, because Joseph then settles in Nazareth to avoid Herod's son Archelaus. Who is deposed in 6 AD and the census of Quirinus is held to tax the Judeans, which is supposedly the reason Luke has Joseph travel to Bethlehem.
Not even contradictory accounts of the same story - utterly different stories.
Quote:
Nonsense. The Bible is a wonderfully accurate historical document, if you are able to have an open mind about it. But an open mind has never been one of your strong suits, has it?
Well, let's see how 'open - minded' you are about the points I made about the nativity.
Well, let's see how 'open - minded' you are about the points I made about the nativity.
He's checking with his bishop, Matt "The Oil" Slick, right now -- preparing to copy/paste a response.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
Well, Mark has no Nativity so I can't give it. John 7 40 -43 has Jesus being debunked because he comes from Galilee and the scripture says the Messiah must come from Bethlehem, the city where David was. But apart from Jesus not responding, John omits to add a parenthetical passage 'But they knew not that Jesus was for sure born in Bethlehem, so there' and the conclusion is that so far as John knew, he wasn't. 
