I repeat:


That "the Bible" is a collection of only some of the gospels, compiled by groups of powerful men for purposes of their own.

Sure it has a lot of good wisdom in it, but so do the Gnostic gospels.

:thumbs:

I repeat:
That "the Bible" is a collection of only some of the gospels, compiled by groups of powerful men for purposes of their own.To limit this observation to "gospels" is shortchanging your argument.
Sure it has a lot of good wisdom in it, but so do the Gnostic gospels.
This too could easily be expanded to include the scriptures of many cultures. But is that the point of the thread? It seems to me to be about examining the Bible, as is. The observation about the selection process is, in deed, relevant. In fact, in great part it may explain what continuity there is to be found in the collection.

To limit this observation to "gospels" is shortchanging your argument.

Not so. The gospels include everything in the Bible and all the Gnostic gospels. It expands the discussion.


This too could easily be expanded to include the scriptures of many cultures.

Do the gnostic gospels apply to the scriptures of many cultures? I thought you were discussing the Christian bible? If so, then the gnostic gospels are as relevant as anything else.

Not so. The gospels include everything in the Bible...How do you arrive at that?
...and all the Gnostic gospels. It expands the discussion.Sure it expands the discussion, but maybe you should handle to original topic before expanding it.
Do the gnostic gospels apply to the scriptures of many cultures?No, of course not. How does that relate to my comment?
I thought you were discussing the Christian bible? If so, then the gnostic gospels are as relevant as anything else.Since they are not actually IN the Bible, how can they possible relate to how amazing the Bible might or might not be, as the original post poses? I am a huge fan of gnostic literature, but think the boat is missed if one does not simply address the actual question regarding the seemingly wondrous claims many find manifest in the Bible itself.

I love the book. Have pored over multiple translations from In to Amen. My great sadness is that, it seems to me, the wonder and value of the messages to be found therein are often lost do to an overly literalistic worship of the book itself.
I guess I'm not certain what you would consider "overly literalistic," I myself take the Bible literally where it intends to be taken literally. For instance, when Psalms speaks of hiding in the shadow of God's wings, I don't take it literally that God has wings, I instead, recognize that the author is using an anthropomorphism. When Jesus teaches that if your hand causes you to sin that you should cut it off, I don't take that literally but recognize it as a hyperbole to highlight the importance of getting rid of that which leads you to sin. Now, however, when Jesus says "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." That I take literally.
I'm rather curious, do you have an example of something in the Bible that Christians take literally, that you think should not be taken literally?

There are many instances where careful reading may leave one to wonder at the editors commitment to consistency. I have read many efforts which attempt to explain away such problems, but they all leave me feeling like I'm hearing the OJ Simpson defense team.
Understandable. But, when I handle the claim that the Bible contradicts itself, I have to ask, is it a true contradiction, and then I have to weed through 2000 plus years of language, culture, and tradition. So far I have yet to see a true contradiction, (that being A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship).

By way of example, consider: where did Joseph, Mary and Jesus go after leaving Bethleham? Matthew and Luke share stories which appear at odds throughout the nativity narratives, but one this one issue they seem utterly contradictory.
Before I answer this question, would you at all mind telling me how these two accounts are truly contradictory? If you would rather not just let me know and I'll jump in and give the answer...or rather I'll try to give the answer.

btw, I do not feel that a literalistic reading of scripture is required or even really to be desired. So, my affestion for the Bible is in no way diminished by the inconsistancies that many point out as a sort of death blow. Thanks for your response.
I suspect that some of the Bible you do think should be taken literally, such as the command: do not murder, or love your neighbor as yourself.

...when Jesus says "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." That I take literally.
I'm rather curious, do you have an example of something in the Bible that Christians take literally, that you think should not be taken literally?You literally go through Jesus to get to the Father. Literally? I don't think this is the example you mean to share, since "to go through someone" is a figure of speech. I do agree, though, that some reasonable disernment will make the whole thing more meaningful, useful, etc. (The passage you chose is actually one of my favorite. It is so delightfully wide open. Orthodoxy requires that it mean a specific doctrinally approved relationship with the Father via substitutional sacrifice of the Son and our individual acceptance of that sacrifice as being in place of our own, etc. But if one could get away from all that for a moment, Jesus is saying something simple, yet profound.)
So far I have yet to see a true contradiction, (that being A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship).I've noticed this bit of legalism from people before.
Before I answer this question, would you at all mind telling me how these two accounts are truly contradictory? If you would rather not just let me know and I'll jump in and give the answer...or rather I'll try to give the answer.One says He went to Egypt, the other says He went to the Temple then back home. If I were to claim to be two places at the same time, would that satisfy your definition of a true contridition?
I suspect that some of the Bible you do think should be taken literally, such as the command: do not murder, or love your neighbor as yourself.Yes, surely. But to literalists this is a slippery slope. Who gets to decide? The old "God said it. That settles it" thing becomes a little fuzzy if everyone gets to decide such matters. This is no problem for me, but the literalist camp has real problems with it.

btw, your last post, in response to mine,was #666. Weird, huh?

How Do You Get To Heaven?

"If I sold my house and my car, had a big garage sale, and gave all my money to the church, would that get me into heaven?" I asked the children in my Sunday school class.

"NO!" the children all answered.

"If I cleaned the church every day, mowed the yard, and kept everything neat and tidy, would that get me into heaven?"

Again the answer was, "NO!"

"Well, then, if I was kind to animals and gave candy to all the children and loved my husband, would that get me into heaven?" I asked them again.

Once more they all answered, "NO!"

"Well," I continued, thinking they were a good bit more theologically sophisticated than I had given them credit for, "then how can I get into heaven?"

A five-year-old boy shouted out, "You gotta be dead!"

A five-year-old boy shouted out, "You gotta be dead!"Didn't Mark Twain once complain that everyone says they want to go to heaven, but no one was interested in dying to get there?

Didn't Mark Twain once complain that everyone says they want to go to heaven, but no one was interested in dying to get there?
Yeah, and I've always wondered why everyone believes there even WAS a Mark Twain. I never met him, did you?

;)
SMW

Mark Twain wrote books. Jesus didn't write shit.

Yeah, and I've always wondered why everyone believes there even WAS a Mark Twain. I never met him, did you?

;)
SMWI think Sam. Langhorne Clemens did.

Yeah, and I've always wondered why everyone believes there even WAS a Mark Twain. I never met him, did you?

;)
SMW

Here's your chance. :)

http://www.meetmarktwain.com/

Mark Twain wrote books. Jesus didn't write shit.
Nappy, and I suppose you can prove this statement, right?

Just like Vile can prove Mark Twain actually wrote all those books?

We are all children of faith. What you CHOOSE to believe makes you who you are.

;)
SMW

Here's your chance. :)

http://www.meetmarktwain.com/
Vile,

Allow me to return the favor :)

http://www.backtothebible.org/meet_jesus/index.htm

Nappy,
You comment would have been better received had you said, "Mark Twain wrote books, Jesus didn't.", rather than, "Mark Twain wrote books. Jesus didn't write shit."

People take their religion seriously and tend to discount comments by people who purposely try to profane it.

Vile,
Vile? C'mon, that was hilarious response!

Nappy,
You comment would have been better received had you said, "Mark Twain wrote books, Jesus didn't.", rather than, "Mark Twain wrote books. Jesus didn't write shit." Plus, then the statement might have been correct. Jesus is somewhat famous for having written something...something in the sand when confronting those willing to stone a woman for adultry. (Something the Islamic world might oughta consider. They do, afterall, claim to revere Jesus.)

Vile? C'mon, that was hilarious response!
She was referring to his user name, Vilepagan, or Vile for short.

She was referring to his user name, Vilepagan, or Vile for short.Yeah, I was being ironic. (Or as my daughter says, ironical.)

...when Jesus says "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." That I take literally.
I'm rather curious, do you have an example of something in the Bible that Christians take literally, that you think should not be taken literally?
You literally go through Jesus to get to the Father. Literally? I don't think this is the example you mean to share, since "to go through someone" is a figure of speech. I do agree, though, that some reasonable disernment will make the whole thing more meaningful, useful, etc.
If the only meaning for "through" is the physical passage sense then you have a great point, but the usage here is "by means of" so the literal sense is still valid.

(The passage you chose is actually one of my favorite. It is so delightfully wide open. Orthodoxy requires that it mean a specific doctrinally approved relationship with the Father via substitutional sacrifice of the Son and our individual acceptance of that sacrifice as being in place of our own, etc. But if one could get away from all that for a moment, Jesus is saying something simple, yet profound.)
You said "simple yet profound" but you didn't offer what that simple and yet profound teaching was. would you tell me?

So far I have yet to see a true contradiction, (that being A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship).

I've noticed this bit of legalism from people before.
I'm not certain what you mean: Are you suggesting that the law of non-contradiction is legalistic and in fact A can indeed be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship? Or are you suggesting that my use of the law of non-contradiction is legalistic...which would be interesting because I was merely explaining what I look for when someone claims that the Bible contradicts itself.

Before I answer this question, would you at all mind telling me how these two accounts are truly contradictory? If you would rather not just let me know and I'll jump in and give the answer...or rather I'll try to give the answer.
One says He went to Egypt, the other says He went to the Temple then back home. If I were to claim to be two places at the same time, would that satisfy your definition of a true contridition?
Yes, if the Biblical claim is that at the same time and in the same relationship Jesus and his family went to the Temple and to Egypt there would be a contradiction...but do these two gospels really make that claim? First I think it's note worthy that the problem exists in the first place. Matthew, one of Jesus' disciples would have known Mary, and, of course, would have known Jesus personally; he would clearly have gotten the information from them. Luke was a historian and wrote near the beginning of his book: "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...". Luke would have talked to the disciples and possibly Mary, during his investigation. So here is the question: after his investigation, would Luke have blundered so badly as to have gotten Jesus' escape to Egypt confused with a leisurely trip to Nazareth, or would Matthew have blundered so badly as to have added a major event in the life of the young Jesus Christ that never happened? I suggest that Matthew wrote his account of the events in the life of Christ, including or excluding certain events, with the purpose of reaching a particular group of people, and Luke wrote his account of the events in the life of Christ, excluding or including certain events with the purpose of reaching a certain group of people.
Simply: Luke decided not to include the escape to Egypt. Why? I don't know, maybe the first century equivalent of paper was extremely expensive, and instead of going into a long account of why Jesus had to go to Egypt, he just left that part out. But what you don't see is Luke saying "Jesus did not go to Egypt."

I suspect that some of the Bible you do think should be taken literally, such as the command: do not murder, or love your neighbor as yourself.
Yes, surely. But to literalists this is a slippery slope. Who gets to decide? The old "God said it. That settles it" thing becomes a little fuzzy if everyone gets to decide such matters. This is no problem for me, but the literalist camp has real problems with it.
Why would the literalist's camp have real problems with a literal view of do not murder and love your neighbor as yourself?
I'm sure there is something here that I'm just not getting, so if you wouldn't mind explaining it to me I'd appreciate it.

Sorry so long getting back to you, this is a very busy time of year for me.

You said "simple yet profound" but you didn't offer what that simple and yet profound teaching was. would you tell me?Be delighted to, but can't right this second. If I forget later, feel free to remind me, please.

Or are you suggesting that my use of the law of non-contradiction is legalistic...which would be interesting because I was merely explaining what I look for when someone claims that the Bible contradicts itself.Yes, that's basically been my feeling on the matter over time. The definition of "contradiction" includes the usage in which "inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another." So if I say testify that after the movie I went to church then straight home, then later say that after the movie I went to Dallas for a considerable length of time and only then went home, these would fairly be considered contradictory statements.



Yes, if the Biblical claim is that at the same time and in the same relationship Jesus and his family went to the Temple and to Egypt there would be a contradiction...but do these two gospels really make that claim?Yes, they do. Consider that in Luke we have a specific time frame, "the time of their purification."(2.22; This by itself is interesting because according to "the law of Moses" only Mary would need this purification.) Leviticus 12.1-4 tells us that the time would by roughly a month. Then they would have been in the temple, then back home. This cannot be made to fit with Matthew's account.



I think it's note worthy that the problem exists in the first place.Me, too.
I suggest that Matthew wrote his account of the events in the life of Christ, including or excluding certain events, with the purpose of reaching a particular group of people, and Luke wrote his account of the events in the life of Christ, excluding or including certain events with the purpose of reaching a certain group of people.Agreed. The accounts were meant to reach certain audiences.
But what you don't see is Luke saying "Jesus did not go to Egypt." But, given the timeline he provides, we do see Luke saying Jesus did not go to Egypt when Matthew says He did.
Why would the literalist's camp have real problems with a literal view of do not murder and love your neighbor as yourself?Well, the whole idea of defining murder gets sticky. For the longest time it was Thou shalt not kill," remember, but that needed to be adjusted, so...
I'm sure there is something here that I'm just not getting, so if you wouldn't mind explaining it to me I'd appreciate it.

Sorry so long getting back to you, this is a very busy time of year for me.Busy all around. But a fascinating subject, and worthy of our interest. I'll be happy to continue it.

Busy all around. But a fascinating subject, and worthy of our interest. I'll be happy to continue it.
Love to continue, but am a bit busy now.

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here.
That could be because she does not know the definition of logic!


Any of various ways that are used by authors to write books today. Fiction writers use their imagination, history writers do research etc. I would imagine the same holds true for the authors of the various books of the Bible. It's really difficult to speculate on the motives of an unknown author.



I think it's unlikely that the Bible you read today is the result of a "project" that spanned 1500 years. The authors probably had different motives than those who compiled the original works into the first Bible, and the various editors, translators and publishers over the years have all added their personal touch to the book. That is very true. The Bible did not assume anything like its present form until the fourth century. the Roman Catholic,Greek Catholic, and Protestant canons were not adopted until modern times. The Bible was recognized as a collection of independent writings. The Council of Trent(1563) determined the Roman Catholic canon,consisting of seventy-two books. The Romanists anathematize the Protestant Bible, and the Protestants denounce the Catholic Bible as a "popish imposture.". The Greek catholics at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 finally accepted the book of Revelation. Their bible contains several books not in the Roman canon. The Westminster Assembley in 1647 approved the list of sixty-six books composing the authorized version, the one most used in America today. Adoption was by majority vote for the bible we use today which is less than 300 years old!!!!:

I believe that the Bible has been around for as long as it has because it does two things. The bible in its current form is less than 300 years old!

First off, the Bible provides "answers." How did the world come about, why there's disease, why we Baptize children, and other things that I'm able to think of on the spot but are no doubt there, dammit. So you take the story of the Garden of Eden as an answer then where did Adam and Eve's children find others to mate with. I mean mates that were not their siblings. Where did they come from? And what does the bible say about why there is disease? How about why did God make diesease? And also why did he create his children only to let some of them starve and die of incurable diseases? Why would an all loving god do that?Christians have found biblical scriptures telling them to burn people at the stake, to justify slavery, to oppress and persecute others, and to kill and commit war in the name fo their god!

Secondly, the Bible does provide hope for those who believe. There IS a God, he loves you, he is looking out for you, he protects you,he gave us his only Son who died for our sins. If you believe in God and let Jesus into your heart, you're soul will be allowed into his Kingdom where eternal life and happiness await you. What is it you think you will be doing for an eternity that will make you happy while some of your friends and neighbors and even members of your own family are burning in a lake of fire for an eternity! And do you like harp music!:eek:

Something like that, dammit.[/QUOTE]

I believe that the Bible has been around for as long as it has because it does two things. The bible in its current form is less than 300 years old!
I believe the point is just that the "Bible" is the collection of books in it's entirety. Obviously it did not exist until that collection was settled on and combined as such. In just the same way, any book cannot be said to exist until it is completed. (Trust me on this one!)

That is very true. The Bible did not assume anything like its present form until the fourth century. the Roman Catholic,Greek Catholic, and Protestant canons were not adopted until modern times. The Bible was recognized as a collection of independent writings. The Council of Trent(1563) determined the Roman Catholic canon,consisting of seventy-two books. The Romanists anathematize the Protestant Bible, and the Protestants denounce the Catholic Bible as a "popish imposture.". The Greek catholics at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 finally accepted the book of Revelation. Their bible contains several books not in the Roman canon. The Westminster Assembley in 1647 approved the list of sixty-six books composing the authorized version, the one most used in America today. Adoption was by majority vote for the bible we use today which is less than 300 years old!!!!:


Thats kind of true but not exactly. I'm not arguing the dates and information you gave. I'm just saying there was a version of the bible that wouldnt have been all that different then the one we use now in the 5th century. The Vulgate or Vulgata.
There was also an OT version that is very close to the OT we use in present times as well. The Septuagint or the LXX which I have a copie of that was translated from the Greek.
Here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

I believe the point is just that the "Bible" is the collection of books in it's entirety. Obviously it did not exist until that collection was settled on and combined as such. In just the same way, any book cannot be said to exist until it is completed. (Trust me on this one!) I just said that the bible we use today is less than 300 years old! The first part was from the quote I was replying to. And I know that a book cannot exist til it is completed. Sorry, if my reply to the other quote was confusing. :)

I just said that the bible we use today is less than 300 years old! The first part was from the quote I was replying to. And I know that a book cannot exist til it is completed. Sorry, if my reply to the other quote was confusing. :)You did say that, I agree. Sorry if I mixed it all up.:drinktoth

There are a few possible reasons for the discrepencies between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

The majority of Jesus' ealy followers were preachers and not authors and they preached to different audiances. Since their preaching was meant primarily to be instructive to their audience they would have emphasized what they felt important for that audience to hear.

Matthew was a Jewish tax collector for the Romans in the city of Capernaum. He was called directly by Jesus to follow him. The people to whom he preached were mainly uneducated Jews.

Luke was a Greek physician and historian who had not been called directly by Jesus but who was instead a friend of Paul of Tarsus. He was writing, not orally transmitting, information for an educated, non-Jewish audience. He would have stressed different things than Matthew stressed.

It is also possible that the authors of the Gospels were working from other sources, sources usually called Q or Quelle from the German for source. This Quelle might have consisted of one source or of a series of sources and depending on which source(s) were used and what parts of them were used accounts would include different things.

While the four Gospels differ in details they do not differ in their central message, that Jesus is the Son of God and as part of the Triune Godhead came down to earth to atone for the sins of man through his death on the cross.

There are a few possible reasons for the discrepencies between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

The majority of Jesus' ealy followers were preachers and not authors and they preached to different audiances. Since their preaching was meant primarily to be instructive to their audience they would have emphasized what they felt important for that audience to hear.

Matthew was a Jewish tax collector for the Romans in the city of Capernaum. He was called directly by Jesus to follow him. The people to whom he preached were mainly uneducated Jews.

Luke was a Greek physician and historian who had not been called directly by Jesus but who was instead a friend of Paul of Tarsus. He was writing, not orally transmitting, information for an educated, non-Jewish audience. He would have stressed different things than Matthew stressed.

It is also possible that the authors of the Gospels were working from other sources, sources usually called Q or Quelle from the German for source. This Quelle might have consisted of one source or of a series of sources and depending on which source(s) were used and what parts of them were used accounts would include different things.

While the four Gospels differ in details they do not differ in their central message, that Jesus is the Son of God and as part of the Triune Godhead came down to earth to atone for the sins of man through his death on the cross.
Well all twelve disciples were Galileans except Judas so how was Luke a Greek physician? Actually it is not known who wrote Luke. Of the twelve disciples four were fishermen, Peter,his brother Andrew, and James and John. Matthew was a tax collector and one a zealot. The occupation of the other six were not known. Of course no one knows who wrote what in the bible if you want to be honest about it! And the early followers of Jesus were apostles after he annointed them and gave them magical powers to to all kind of stuff you would expect in some sort of fairtytale! Like the ability to cast out demons and heal all disease and sickness. :@@:

There are a few possible reasons for the discrepencies between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.Is this intended to address the apparent contradictions in the post-nativity narratives?
While the four Gospels differ in details they do not differ in their central message, that Jesus is the Son of God and as part of the Triune Godhead came down to earth to atone for the sins of man through his death on the cross.True enough, but I never suggested otherwise. Rather the point of the earlier exchange was that the two books do more than "differ in details" when telling the story of Jesus' early life.

Well all twelve disciples were Galileans except Judas so how was Luke a Greek physician? Actually it is not known who wrote Luke. Of the twelve disciples four were fishermen, Peter,his brother Andrew, and James and John. Matthew was a tax collector and one a zealot. The occupation of the other six were not known. Of course no one knows who wrote what in the bible if you want to be honest about it! And the early followers of Jesus were apostles after he annointed them and gave them magical powers to to all kind of stuff you would expect in some sort of fairtytale! Like the ability to cast out demons and heal all disease and sickness. :@@:
A related note on this topic... It's a matter of historical probability that none of the Gospels were written before about 60-70 CE. That's about 30 years after Jesus died. Therefore, it's unlikely that any of the Gospels were written by actual disciples of Jesus. The earliest written Gospel, which I believe was Mark if memory serves, may have been written by someone who knew Jesus personally. All subsequent Gospels were almost definitely written well after 70 CE, making it almost impossible that any of them were written by contemporaries of Jesus.

Well all twelve disciples were Galileans except Judas so how was Luke a Greek physician?


THE names of the twelve apostles are; Simon Peter, Andrew (the brother of Simon Peter), James and John (the sons of Zebedee), Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James (the son of Alphaeus), Labbaeus (also called Thaddaeus, Simon (the Cananite, and Judas Iscariat.

Notice that Luke was not one of them.

Nappy,
You comment would have been better received had you said, "Mark Twain wrote books, Jesus didn't.", rather than, "Mark Twain wrote books. Jesus didn't write shit."
Doesn't matter. The truth of the words is evident. I'm not going to hide my distaste for the mindset that religion is to be taken seriously even by people who don't share it. What do you mean by "better received" anyway? You seem to be the only one who cares. Hell, it even seems to have provoked a little debate! Imagine that!

People take their religion seriously and tend to discount comments by people who purposely try to profane it.
I'm not interested in tiptoeing around people's sensitivities. And anyway, not everyone cares so much. Inviolable, despite being an incredibly devout individual, understands that not all people share his beliefs, and still manages to find peace with that. Why can't you?

Oh, I do find peace with that. I just don't understand why you have to be so childish when you post. There was no need for you to be purposely nasty yet that is the way you chose to post. I guess it is just basic immaturity on your part.

Whatever you want to attribute it to, is up to you, but it's obvious you don't find peace, if you must quibble over wordings.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2007/07/bible_truths.jpg

Cute picture. Too bad many people miss the real value of The Book because they are so busy buying into sillyness.

Silliness is very much what the Bible is all about. Adam begat Harry begat Benjamin begat Snoop Dogg begat Pope Dizzle begat...

Unless the good book teaches me how to part water like Moses, I think I'll pass.

You're funny.

Silliness is very much what the Bible is all about. Adam begat Harry begat Benjamin begat Snoop Dogg begat Pope Dizzle begat...

Unless the good book teaches me how to part water like Moses, I think I'll pass.


It's kind of sad in its own right, not the bible but the way people respond to Christianity and the bible.

I have heard people react harsh, I mean "harsh!" to bad comments about Harry Potter. When asked why they'll say, we love Harry Potter!
But when it comes to the bible those same people cant figure out why they'er considered assholes by the Christian community for ragging on something we love, the bible.
But hey, some of us said bad stuff about Harry Potter. We deserve it.
Not that we'll say anything as harsh as a bad review from Harry Potter would get.
And not that I have anything against Harry Potter, it just happens to be the most popular book at present and a good example.

You have a perfect right to be as nasty as you wish concerning Christianity and The Bible, Nappy and I have the same perfect right to consider you an immature ass when you do it.

It is possible for mature people to discuss the issue of religion without resorting to nastiness.

It's kind of sad in its own right, not the bible but the way people respond to Christianity and the bible.
I think it's okay for people to express their doubts/complaints, etc. re the Bible. When we make huge claims for the importance of something, it seems fair that it should stand up to examination.

You have a perfect right to be as nasty as you wish concerning Christianity and The Bible, Nappy and I have the same perfect right to consider you an immature ass when you do it.

It is possible for mature people to discuss the issue of religion without resorting to nastiness.


Who you talking to?

Who you talking to?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogger
You have a perfect right to be as nasty as you wish concerning Christianity and The Bible, Nappy and I have the same perfect right to consider you an immature ass when you do it.

It is possible for mature people to discuss the issue of religion without resorting to nastiness.

Nappy

It's kind of sad in its own right, not the bible but the way people respond to Christianity and the bible.

I have heard people react harsh, I mean "harsh!" to bad comments about Harry Potter. When asked why they'll say, we love Harry Potter!
But when it comes to the bible those same people cant figure out why they'er considered assholes by the Christian community for ragging on something we love, the bible.
But hey, some of us said bad stuff about Harry Potter. We deserve it.
Not that we'll say anything as harsh as a bad review from Harry Potter would get.
And not that I have anything against Harry Potter, it just happens to be the most popular book at present and a good example.
Those people, you point out, who get very angry at disparaging Harry Potter, that's someone who takes his beloved novels a tad bit too seriously. In fact, that's the classic sign when you know you are taking something too seriously, when you get angry at a person who dares make fun of it. But, a few differences between Potter and Bible:

Harry Potter fans do not make huge voting blocs where they try to systematically move the nation inexorably towards a theocracy, using the Bible as the catalyst.

Harry Potter does not break homes when one member of the family doesn't believe in the all-powerfulness of it's teachings.

What if the Harry Potter books did such things? Think if you were on the other side of the Harry Potter voting bloc and you didn't care to see mandatory Potter reading groups at school? Think you'd keep your displeasure aimed at the practices you dislike instead of the whole phenomena?

So excuuuse me if I get a little angry over the "good" book. Maybe get a little sarcastic. Maybe even drop a few disparaging pictures or comparisons. (seems Inviolable is doing my work for me!)

I have the same perfect right to consider you an immature ass when you do it.
What did I just say? Hello? I'll quote it for you:

Whatever you want to attribute it to, is up to you, but it's obvious you don't find peace, if you must quibble over wordings.
Relevant part bolded.

Try to make sense next time.

How ironic that a thread started to discuss the Bible ends up being another Christian-bashing vehicle for the non-believers?

And Borg and Vile accuse me of running around bashing atheists. Bless their little misguided hearts.

SMW

Oh please, if this is what qualifies as Christian bashing, you need to get back in your church and rue the minute you ever left. Tell ya what, you'll never find me there! Besides, you people outnumber us here, anyway. Now go play. Preferably in traffic.

Oh please, if this is what qualifies as Christian bashing, you need to get back in your church and rue the minute you ever left. Tell ya what, you'll never find me there! Besides, you people outnumber us here, anyway. Now go play. Preferably in traffic.
No way, Nappy. Wanna do a headcount?

No way, Nappy. Wanna do a headcount?
Use the gold forum list of members to see.

Sure! On your side, there's you, Frogger, Inviolable, Shilohproject, stark. Over here there's me and afinertouch, and dharmabum and FT if you want to count four pages ago, and if you're doing that you might as well count rendova for your team. I'll trust you to do the petty arithmetic. Nobody else has really joined the discussion, and Nighthawk was banned. DF and Sal aren't taking sides.

Sure! On your side, there's you, Frogger, Inviolable, Shilohproject, stark. Over here there's me and afinertouch, and dharmabum and FT if you want to count four pages ago, and if you're doing that you might as well count rendova for your team. I'll trust you to do the petty arithmetic. Nobody else has really joined the discussion, and Nighthawk was banned. DF and Sal aren't taking sides.

Let's don't forget

Drew
Vile
Borg

(and who really knows about Dharma? One minute he's telling me he volunteers thru his church... the next, he's right in there with the atheists. Maybe we should put him in the 'whichever way the wind's blowing' column?)

That's because Sal and I are neither Christians nor atheists, and therefore we bash neither.

As I said before, SMW, none of them have really joined the discussion. Try to keep up, I know it's hard.

As I said before, SMW, none of them have really joined the discussion. Try to keep up, I know it's hard.

Sorry, Nappy... I wasn't talking about THIS discussion. I was talking about Allforums as a whole.

You try to keep up, OK?

Well, I was. Notice who made the first statement, and who was responding. Can I call you a cow again, just for old time's sake?

Not to belabor the point, but you said

Besides, you people outnumber us here, anyway.

Guess you should have specifically said ON THIS THREAD if that's what you meant, eh?

SMW

P.S. Sure go ahead. But let me get the first word in...


http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/Cow.gif
*moo*

And that, my sweets, was in response to your complaint about the thread. Do you understand yet?

And that, my sweets, was in response to your complaint about the thread. Do you understand yet?

Let's beat this horse a little more, shall we?

My comment about Vile & Borg accusing me of bashing atheists wasn't made in THIS thread. Therefore, I was referring to ALL threads.

Your turn.

No, it stops there, sweetheart. You were clearly referring to this thread. The other comment was an aside.

OK, Nappy... I'll let you get in the next-to-the-last word.

*moo*

Just killing time with the nitwit before the people who really want to talk about this get back into the discussion.

Cant say I don't see Naps point, which he did a good job of making clear.

I really cant counter it, I dont think anyone here can.

I will say, bashing the bible isnt going to get us to listen to you any more then what we were before.

I will say, bashing the bible isnt going to get us to listen to you any more then what we were before.
I suppose not. But if I wanted you to listen to me, I'd make sound arguments. Which I am more than capable of doing. That, I wanted people to laugh at. There's two sides to everything. I wish Christians were able to see the silly, self-refuting aspects of Christianity without feeling threatened by them. I am more than aware of the pointlessness and idiocy of some of the things atheists are guilty of, and I've made a thread or two in the past pointing them out. And I am perfectly capable of entertaining a discussion about them. It's that kind of flexibility of mind I'm trying to promote when I post such things.

That's because Sal and I are neither Christians nor atheists, and therefore we bash neither.I try to not bash on people either way. Their beliefs are their own, and that's fine with me. (In fact, I often find myself on the sharp end of other so-called Christians due to my significantly non-evangelical beliefs.) It's all good though.

Shiloproject,
Hi, sorry so long in getting back to you, I still owe you an answer to the Matthew Luke contradiction problem.

Now, as I recall, the problem concerned the events that took place after the birth of Jesus Christ. You put it this way in one of your posts:
One says He went to Egypt, the other says He went to the Temple then back home. If I were to claim to be two places at the same time, would that satisfy your definition of a true contridition?
Let's go through Matthew and Luke slowly and see if there really is a contradiction.

Matthew starts out in Chapter 2:1 "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem..." The question: how long after Jesus was born did the Magi arrive in Jerusalem? I don't know, Matthew doesn't say and Luke doesn't even mention the Magi.

Next we find that the Magi want to worship this new born king of the Jews, Herod is nervous, finds our where this "king" was predicted to be born, calls the Magi to find out when the star had appeared, and sends them to Bethlehem, with the instructions, (from verse 8) "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him report to me, so that I too may go and worship him." After the Magi leave the star shows up again, leads the way and, (from 9) "stopped over the place where the child was." Another question: What town did the star stop at? Bethlehem? The prediction was that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, not grow up there, could it be that the star had stopped in Nazareth. The Bible doesn't say where the star stopped, only that it led the way to Jesus. Another question: does the Bible give any indication of how much time passed between when Jesus was born and when the Magi left for home after worshiping Jesus? The only hint I can find is in Matthew 2:16 where Herod, in a rage, orders all the boys in Bethlehem, (again that only suggests that Herod knew where Jesus was born, not where he lived) two years old and younger be killed.

To add to this, Luke provides some detail to the events of the very early days of Jesus, apparently a few days after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph had him in Jerusalem, at the Temple, presenting him to the Lord. (Luke 2:22) and then 2:39 says that "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth." And verse 40 says "And the child grew and became strong;..." Notice it doesn't say' "and the child stayed right there until he grew and became strong." It is here, between 39 and 40 that Luke fails to mention what Matthew records as a warning from an angel, and an escape to Egypt. One more question: Why did Luke not mention Jesus' escape to Egypt? I don't know, I can only assume that his agenda for writing the account of Jesus' birth had no reason to write it down, maybe because Matthew had already written about it. I noticed that Matthew leaves out the trip to Bethlehem by pregnant Mary, the crowded Inn scene, the angels announcement, and the shepherds coming to worship Jesus...why? I don't know. Luke leaves out the whole Magi visitation and the slaughtered babies scene...why? I don't know, but it sure does seem that these two authors (Matthew and Luke) had different points they wanted to highlight in the birth of Christ narrative.

Shiloproject, let me know what you think about this.

Oh and by the way I'm still interested about your view of what Jesus meant when he said "I am the way and the truth and the life, No one comes to the Father except through me."

Shiloproject,
Hi, sorry so long in getting back to you, I still owe you an answer to the Matthew Luke contradiction problem.Thanks for the response. I thought perhaps you'd been offended by something I'd said, or something. That is never my intent, so I'm delighted to hear back from you.

The possibility you offer is one I've considered at some length. And, if I am reading you correctly, it boils down to the idea that the magi must have visited Jesus in Nazareth, not in Bethleham. So, if we combine Matthew and Luke: Joseph and Mary are in Nazareth, go to Bethleham, Jesus is born, then it's off to the Temple, back to home in Nazareth and there the magi meet up with them, only then does the flight to Egypt occur, after which Herod dies and Joseph takes them all back to Nazareth, where Jesus grows unmolested until the beginning of His public ministry, with a notable trip to the Temple along the way. (The time He gets left behind.)

If we accept this timeline, it may handle all the loss ends, but I see problems with it. Matt. 2.8 tells us that Harod "sent them to Bethleham," speaking of the magi, and Matthew no where says they varied from that course. Then in v. 22, Matthew tells us that Joseph, upon leaving Egypt, was afraid to go to Judea because Archelaus was ruling there and only then did he "go away to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth..."(vv. 22,23) So it would appear that the trip to Galilee and Nazareth, according to Matthew was clearly not just a return home, but an effort to not simply return home, because he feared for Jesus' safety; therefore, we went to a new, out of the way town and settled.

It seems important to consider that Matthew and Luke tell absolutely differant stories. There is surely a reason for this. The problem which I find here to be unfixable is only one thing to consider. Otherwise, all Christian tradition showing the manger scene with the magi should be tossed out. I'm not advocating that, as our churches sets are eally cool!

Oh and by the way I'm still interested about your view of what Jesus meant when he said "I am the way and the truth and the life, No one comes to the Father except through me."I'll start a thread on this. Probably tomorrow.

If we accept this timeline, it may handle all the loss ends, but I see problems with it. Matt. 2.8 tells us that Harod "sent them to Bethleham," speaking of the magi, and Matthew no where says they varied from that course. Then in v. 22, Matthew tells us that Joseph, upon leaving Egypt, was afraid to go to Judea because Archelaus was ruling there and only then did he "go away to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth..."(vv. 22,23) So it would appear that the trip to Galilee and Nazareth, according to Matthew was clearly not just a return home, but an effort to not simply return home, because he feared for Jesus' safety; therefore, we went to a new, out of the way town and settled.

Very good response. Another interesting thing is that Luke 2:4 mentions Joseph as having lived in Nazareth, but going from Matthew 2:22 it appears that Nazareth is a whole new location for them...hmmmm.
I'm still busy, this time of year, but give me time to check this out and I'll get back to you.

Lots of people take their religion seriously.. i mean, how dare them, right?

It's like a janitor who is just trying to put food on his table getting done with a days work, and some kid comes up and says "You know what? You are a lazy, dumb-assed, sorry excuse for a human being. You clean shit out of my toilets, you are too stupid to get a REAL job. Why don't you try reading a book for a change you lazy, dumb, fatfuck?" .. and then laughs all the way down the hall as the janitor just stands there.

How would you feel?

How would you feel If someone came up to your kid and say "DAMN that's an ugly kid, who fucked up on that one? Don't worry kid, you have YEARS of hating yourself and being made fun of by prissy rich kids who are much better than you.

Kind of a touchy subject eh?

Kind of a touchy subject eh?
Yeah, it's pretty irritating, isn't it? Just think how it must be for an atheist.

Yeah, it's pretty irritating, isn't it? Just think how it must be for an atheist.I don't see how any reasonable person, athiest or otherwise, could be irritated by someone's honestly examining the texts they hold as impotant. I, for one, have never been bothered by such, and have never castigated the athiest, agnostic, etc., for the sureness or lack thereof in their held position. I think it's weird when people get too irritated over things, though.

Do you ever feel out of the loop because your belief system significantly detaches you from the rest of your brethren?

Do you ever feel out of the loop because your belief system significantly detaches you from the rest of your brethren?


You ever see that movie Contact? With Jodie Foster.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/trailers-screenplay-E10158-10-2

Near the end she is being questioned. She spills her heart out on national television, over a moment she had that she can't explain and no one believes her. She describes the feeling and the kind of reaction I get with God to a tee.
Her moment quickly becomes diminished has it is rationalised away to nothing by everyone but her. All she wanted was to share something that would change the world for the better.

I live that every day.

You act like you're the only one on the face of the planet to feel misunderstood. :rolleyes: False dramatics will convert only fools. But I was asking Shiloh, because he said he catches shit from Christians all the time for being non-evangelical.

It's not just studying the Bible that is interesting; it's studying what is NOT in the bible.
Generally speaking the Bible contains nothing written prior to about 200 CE. (please let's not debate about a few decades here or there). Documents prior to that time have been discovered and there is a significant difference between the teachings contained in the "accepted" version of the Bible and these earlier documents.
The major differences are in the relationship that exist between God and mankind, and the position of women in the Church.
The earlier documents indicate that Mankind has a very personal relationship with God. There is no requirement to interpose a priesthood between Him and us.
These earlier documents also elevate women to a very high standing in the Church; they were leaders and certainly some of the documents refer to them as Apostles.
It could be posited that circa 200 CE more and more people were converted to Christianity. These people would have been brought up in the Roman way of life that generally treated women as somewhat lesser than men and also had a societal structure that required leaders and followers. This new group of converts therefore began to organize the Church in the habits of the culture. Certain documents were deemed valid and others ignored. It was simply a case of men making a power-grab. Of course these power struggles continue even today.

With respect to contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible, I'm surprised there aren't more of them. Just trying reading history books of the American Revolution, or even WWII. These events are quite recent and yet you'll find inaccuracies and contradictions. That's the nature of events when more that one person writes them down.
Further complication arise when you realize that the Bible is the result of translations of translations and that words change in meaning as time goes by. Try reading Chaucer in the original English and you understand what I mean.

Obviously I do not believe that that every word in the Bible is true. That does not prove it it invalid, anymore than the history books we read are invalid.

You act like you're the only one on the face of the planet to feel misunderstood. :rolleyes: False dramatics will convert only fools. But I was asking Shiloh, because he said he catches shit from Christians all the time for being non-evangelical.

Oh, didn't read that.

I might be over reacting some what, but not false.

Do you ever feel out of the loop because your belief system significantly detaches you from the rest of your brethren?Sometimes, yes. There are times when asked if I am a Christian, I'll have to say, "What do you mean by that?" But I should add that there are a great many "Christians" who do not hold to such rigid doctine as the Evangelicals.

My church is a United Methodist one, one of the protestant denominations described by Pat Robinson have having the "spirit of antichrist" because of our our more liberal reading of scripture and inclusive tendencies. That is fine with me, though, as I find many of his positions objectionable and seemingly driven by a my-way-or-the-highway attitude. I don't think that represents most Christians, though, just some of the more vocal and insistant groups.

Obviously I do not believe that that every word in the Bible is true. That does not prove it it invalid, anymore than the history books we read are invalid.I once read that something may not necessarily be completely accurate and can still be the truth. In fact in some areas, strict rigidity to accuracy detracts from truth, in a way. A bit of a loose notion, I agree, but when you get your hands finally around it, it makes a bunch of sense.

(Idea by Orson Scott Card.)

I might be over reacting some what, but not false.Bingo!:drinktoth

I once read that something may not necessarily be completely accurate and can still be the truth. In fact in some areas, strict rigidity to accuracy detracts from truth, in a way. A bit of a loose notion, I agree, but when you get your hands finally around it, it makes a bunch of sense.

(Idea by Orson Scott Card.)

If everything in the Bible were completely consistent with no contradictions or ambiguities, someone would claim it must have been edited and therefore false.

I might be over reacting some what, but not false.
Oh I have little doubt you feel that way. But if you feel that way every single day, that must mean you're out there proselytizing, handing out tracts, knocking on doors, whatnot, all the time. Are you? Or is this just a general feeling? If it's the former, you deserve it, if the latter, completely apathetic.

If everything in the Bible were completely consistent with no contradictions or ambiguities, someone would claim it must have been edited and therefore false.
What the hell? If God wrote the Bible as everyone said He did, it would make sense without all that nonsense. Hell, if I can get myself across without it, I'm sure God could.

Oh I have little doubt you feel that way. But if you feel that way every single day, that must mean you're out there proselytizing, handing out tracts, knocking on doors, whatnot, all the time. Are you? Or is this just a general feeling? If it's the former, you deserve it, if the latter, completely apathetic.


No, I'm not handing out flyers and what not.

I guess its a general feeling and I wasnt trying to get an emotional responce.
I was just trying to explain something.
In hind sight, I guess I shouldnt of even tried, I think I missed the mark entirely.
Unless I'm hanging out with a group of Christians, chances are someone will unknowingly say something offensive. I realise that sounds extremely rude and I was trying to put it in context.

What the hell? If God wrote the Bible as everyone said He did, it would make sense without all that nonsense. Hell, if I can get myself across without it, I'm sure God could.

I'm sorry, your post is so cryptic I cannot understand it.:confused: Perhaps it's like so much of the Bible, open to different interpretations.

I'm sorry, your post is so cryptic I cannot understand it.:confused: Perhaps it's like so much of the Bible, open to different interpretations.

lol

No, I'm not handing out flyers and what not.

I guess its a general feeling and I wasnt trying to get an emotional responce.
I was just trying to explain something.
In hind sight, I guess I shouldnt of even tried, I think I missed the mark entirely.
Unless I'm hanging out with a group of Christians, chances are someone will unknowingly say something offensive. I realise that sounds extremely rude and I was trying to put it in context.
You should probably stick with your church buddies, if that's how you feel.

You should probably stick with your church buddies, if that's how you feel.


Yes, but thats why I made referrence to the movie. Even though she was completely surrounded by disbelief she knew eventually, some where some how, she could inform people of this great thing.
So she didn't give up on the thought that it would help other people and she just kept going.

Thats one of the highlights of being a Christian and several scriptures are devoted to it in the bible.

I'm not saying when I am offended its anyones fault, but when I am offended it brings up this overhwleming feeling. And the feeling isnt hateful or resentful.
Its of dissapointment or despair maybe even discouragement.
Because what I know can make anyone happier in their lives and that very thing is whats being belittled and mocked.

It's not just studying the Bible that is interesting; it's studying what is NOT in the bible.
Generally speaking the Bible contains nothing written prior to about 200 CE. (please let's not debate about a few decades here or there). Documents prior to that time have been discovered and there is a significant difference between the teachings contained in the "accepted" version of the Bible and these earlier documents.
The major differences are in the relationship that exist between God and mankind, and the position of women in the Church.
The earlier documents indicate that Mankind has a very personal relationship with God. There is no requirement to interpose a priesthood between Him and us.
These earlier documents also elevate women to a very high standing in the Church; they were leaders and certainly some of the documents refer to them as Apostles.
It could be posited that circa 200 CE more and more people were converted to Christianity. These people would have been brought up in the Roman way of life that generally treated women as somewhat lesser than men and also had a societal structure that required leaders and followers. This new group of converts therefore began to organize the Church in the habits of the culture. Certain documents were deemed valid and others ignored. It was simply a case of men making a power-grab. Of course these power struggles continue even today.

With respect to contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible, I'm surprised there aren't more of them. Just trying reading history books of the American Revolution, or even WWII. These events are quite recent and yet you'll find inaccuracies and contradictions. That's the nature of events when more that one person writes them down.
Further complication arise when you realize that the Bible is the result of translations of translations and that words change in meaning as time goes by. Try reading Chaucer in the original English and you understand what I mean.

Obviously I do not believe that that every word in the Bible is true. That does not prove it it invalid, anymore than the history books we read are invalid.

You made some very good points here, Oldtimer.

Hi Shiloproject, I've been looking over this debate, and have a few observations. For me the fact that Matthew mentions the trip to Egypt and Luke does not, is not a problem. For what ever reason Luke does not include it as part of the birth narrative. Could it be because, to Luke, Jesus going to Egypt for X amount of time, was not important for the point he wanted to make? I wonder how long Jesus spent in Egypt in the first place. Jesus was born 6/5 B.C. and Herod (the reason Jesus' family leave for Egypt) dies 4 B.C. Was Jesus and his family even in Egypt for a year? Less then a year? A couple of months? I don't know, but it may be the reason Luke finds it not important enough to mention.
It's also not a problem, for me, that Luke says in 2:39 "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth." Because Luke had no interest in mentioning the Egypt trip, he simply cuts to the chase and mentions the town the family went back to. I suspect this would be considered a mistake, on Luke's part only if he was writing an exhaustive history of the Birth of Jesus. But I don't think this falls under the category of contradiction.
Now here's, for me, where the problem comes in:
Here is the troublesome verse from Matthew 2:21-23 "So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there,..." Here is problem number one, this sounds as if Joseph, originally had no intention of moving to Nazareth...I'll continue with the verses: "Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth..." Problem number two why did Matthew say "he went and lived in a town called Nazareth" as if no one had heard of Nazareth?
Here's my answers for those problems:
Problem #1 It could be that coming back from Egypt Joseph had wanted to start a life somewhere a bit more "up town" then Nazareth, remember Nathan asked "can anything good come out of Nazareth?" It appears that Nazareth was not a very popular tourist destination...at the time. So when Joseph finds there is possible trouble where he wanted to go he heads back home to Nazareth. Certainly, Luke says nothing about Joseph "possibly" intending to go somewhere else to set up shop, but then again, Luke doesn't say anything at all about the Egypt event in the life of Christ.

Problem #2 I suggest that Matthew brings up Nazareth, as if no one had heard of Nazareth, because in his account no one had heard of Nazareth. Look at chapter 1:18 and on; where an angel visits Joseph. Notice that it doesn't mention where Joseph is from- matter of fact, Nazareth isn't even mentioned in Matthew's birth narrative until chapter 2:23 when he points out that Joseph decides to settle there.

Side by side the two birth narratives are difficult, but not truly contradictory; you have two men, writing an account of the birth of Jesus, with a particular point, that they wanted to make, to a particular audience, in the confines of a particular culture and a particular language, yet at the same time in the "shadows" if you would, there is God breathing out the very words He intends, so that the message of each particular book will be heard.

I look forward to you response.

Hi Shiloproject, I've been looking over this debate, and have a few observations.Welcome in.
For me the fact that Matthew mentions the trip to Egypt and Luke does not, is not a problem. For what ever reason Luke does not include it as part of the birth narrative. Could it be because, to Luke, Jesus going to Egypt for X amount of time, was not important for the point he wanted to make? I wonder how long Jesus spent in Egypt in the first place. Jesus was born 6/5 B.C. and Herod (the reason Jesus' family leave for Egypt) dies 4 B.C. Was Jesus and his family even in Egypt for a year? Less then a year? A couple of months? I don't know, but it may be the reason Luke finds it not important enough to mention.Not a problem for me either. The issue we were examining is not the variations of inclusion/exclusion of certain material from one book to the next, but rather that Matthew seems to be saying that they went from Bethleham to Egypt straight away, whereas Luke says they went to Jerusalem them right on home. This is not one of the inconsistant testimonies that people so often point to as contradictions, but rather is a flat impossibility if both books are historically accurate.

It's also not a problem, for me, that Luke says in 2:39 "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth." Because Luke had no interest in mentioning the Egypt trip, he simply cuts to the chase and mentions the town the family went back to. I suspect this would be considered a mistake, on Luke's part only if he was writing an exhaustive history of the Birth of Jesus. But I don't think this falls under the category of contradiction."The Law of the Lord," in the verse you cite, is a very specific ritualized thing. It puts a strict timeframe forward for the "return" to Nazareth, according to Luke. This cannot be made to fit with Matthew's account.
Now here's, for me, where the problem comes in:
Here is the troublesome verse from Matthew 2:21-23 "So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there,..." Here is problem number one, this sounds as if Joseph, originally had no intention of moving to Nazareth...I'll continue with the verses: "Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth..."Matthew appears to be telling us that Joseph and Mary never lived in Nazareth at all until returning from Egypt.
Problem number two why did Matthew say "he went and lived in a town called Nazareth" as if no one had heard of Nazareth?Because it was a new home location for them.
Here's my answers for those problems:
Problem #1 It could be that coming back from Egypt Joseph had wanted to start a life somewhere a bit more "up town" then Nazareth, remember Nathan asked "can anything good come out of Nazareth?" It appears that Nazareth was not a very popular tourist destination...at the time. So when Joseph finds there is possible trouble where he wanted to go he heads back home to Nazareth. Certainly, Luke says nothing about Joseph "possibly" intending to go somewhere else to set up shop, but then again, Luke doesn't say anything at all about the Egypt event in the life of Christ.Well, suppositions may abound, in deed, but they are not necessarily supported by the texts. You bring up an important point, though, one I'd put a sharper edge on: There are no real similarites in the two nativity stories, other than the names of the three main characters.

Problem #2 I suggest that Matthew brings up Nazareth, as if no one had heard of Nazareth, because in his account no one had heard of Nazareth. Look at chapter 1:18 and on; where an angel visits Joseph. Notice that it doesn't mention where Joseph is from- matter of fact, Nazareth isn't even mentioned in Matthew's birth narrative until chapter 2:23 when he points out that Joseph decides to settle there.Exactly the point. In Matthew, Nazareth is never mentioned until it arises as a nice out of the way place to take Jesus and raise Him in relative obscurity.

Side by side the two birth narratives are difficult, but not truly contradictory;I'm only suggesting that they contradict each other in the only element they have in common: the events between Jesus' birth and His settling in Nazareth.
you have two men, writing an account of the birth of Jesus, with a particular point, that they wanted to make, to a particular audience, in the confines of a particular culture and a particular language, yet at the same time in the "shadows" if you would, there is God breathing out the very words He intends, so that the message of each particular book will be heard.Now, we agree! But perhaps not for the reasons some would like. They are, in deed, written for specific audiences. Their purpose seems to be less to chronicle the birth and early life of Jesus, and more to show Him to be the promised perfect mediator between God and man.

I look forward to you response.Hope this is of interest.

Welcome in.
Not a problem for me either. The issue we were examining is not the variations of inclusion/exclusion of certain material from one book to the next, but rather that Matthew seems to be saying that they went from Bethleham to Egypt straight away, whereas Luke says they went to Jerusalem them right on home. This is not one of the inconsistant testimonies that people so often point to as contradictions, but rather is a flat impossibility if both books are historically accurate.
Here's the problem, Matthew doesn't say that they went from Bethlehem straight to Egypt, it says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and it says that the Magi went to his home to visit him, but that doesn't necessarily mean that his home was in Bethlehem. My suggestion is that the Magi visited Jesus in Nazareth. Remember Herod had all the male babies in Bethlehem killed two years old and under (he was mistaken about the location of Jesus, because Jesus was born in Bethlehem doesn't mean he stayed there). Why two and under? I think that was the amount of time that passed between when Jesus was born and when the Magi visited Jesus. It was during that time (before the Magi) that Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Jerusalem, and then back home to Nazareth. As I mentioned before, it's possible that the reason Matthew 2:23 says "and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth." as if it were a new idea, is that Matthew was, for the first time, introducing the reader to the home town of Nazareth.

"The Law of the Lord," in the verse you cite, is a very specific ritualized thing. It puts a strict timeframe forward for the "return" to Nazareth, according to Luke. This cannot be made to fit with Matthew's account.
Those two years between the birth of Jesus and the visit by the Magi solve that problem.

Matthew appears to be telling us that Joseph and Mary never lived in Nazareth at all until returning from Egypt.
Because it was a new home location for them.
No. Matthew doesn't mention Nazareth, at all, until he mentioned that Joseph settled in a town called Nazareth. Remember that I had suggested that Joseph (after Egypt) wanted to settle somewhere more "upscale" but because of Archelaus went back to Nazareth. Of course Matthew doesn't say "back to Nazareth" but that is because he doesn't mention Joseph as being from there in the first place.

Well, suppositions may abound, in deed, but they are not necessarily supported by the texts.
True, but they are not contradicted by the text.

You bring up an important point, though, one I'd put a sharper edge on: There are no real similarites in the two nativity stories, other than the names of the three main characters.
Sure, but Matthew and Luke had their own agenda going when they wrote their birth narratives, the key point is that, upon close examination, the stories do no contradict each other.

I'm only suggesting that they contradict each other in the only element they have in common: the events between Jesus' birth and His settling in Nazareth.
Probably I don't have to say...I disagree.

Now, we agree! But perhaps not for the reasons some would like. They are, in deed, written for specific audiences. Their purpose seems to be less to chronicle the birth and early life of Jesus, and more to show Him to be the promised perfect mediator between God and man.
Tell me, do you consider the Bible, Old and New, the Word of God, and what do you think of the other books seen as sacred to other religions?

Hope this is of interest.
This is of great interest.

You should probably stick with your church buddies, if that's how you feel.

Yes, but thats why I made referrence to the movie. Even though she was completely surrounded by disbelief she knew eventually, some where some how, she could inform people of this great thing.
So she didn't give up on the thought that it would help other people and she just kept going.

Thats one of the highlights of being a Christian and several scriptures are devoted to it in the bible.

I'm not saying when I am offended its anyones fault, but when I am offended it brings up this overhwleming feeling. And the feeling isnt hateful or resentful.
Its of dissapointment or despair maybe even discouragement.
Because what I know can make anyone happier in their lives and that very thing is whats being belittled and mocked.

Somewhere in scripture it says, "Cast not your pearls before swine." And then somewhere else in scripture it says, "Thou shall not judge,"

At what point are you judging and at what point are they really just swine? I don't know :) It is a delima in my reality, not that that really matters.

Tucker58

Here's the problem, Matthew doesn't say that they went from Bethlehem straight to Egypt, it says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and it says that the Magi went to his home to visit him, but that doesn't necessarily mean that his home was in Bethlehem. My suggestion is that the Magi visited Jesus in Nazareth. Remember Herod had all the male babies in Bethlehem killed two years old and under (he was mistaken about the location of Jesus, because Jesus was born in Bethlehem doesn't mean he stayed there). Why two and under? I think that was the amount of time that passed between when Jesus was born and when the Magi visited Jesus. It was during that time (before the Magi) that Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Jerusalem, and then back home to Nazareth. As I mentioned before, it's possible that the reason Matthew 2:23 says "and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth." as if it were a new idea, is that Matthew was, for the first time, introducing the reader to the home town of Nazareth.So you believe that a despotic king like Herod "sent them to Bethleham" (Mt 2.8), just a few miles south of Jerusalem, but instead they went to Nazareth, some 70 miles north of Jerusalem? This is a suprising possibility given what we know about the historical Herod the Great. Also, if they were now well north of Jerusalem, why would they need to be concerned about going home another route to avoid Herod? That only makes sense if they are in Bethleham and must travel back through on their way to the East.
No. Matthew doesn't mention Nazareth, at all, until he mentioned that Joseph settled in a town called Nazareth. Remember that I had suggested that Joseph (after Egypt) wanted to settle somewhere more "upscale" but because of Archelaus went back to Nazareth. Of course Matthew doesn't say "back to Nazareth" but that is because he doesn't mention Joseph as being from there in the first place.Your Matthew is less reliable than the one I'm suggesting.
Sure, but Matthew and Luke had their own agenda going when they wrote their birth narratives, the key point is that, upon close examination, the stories do no contradict each other.I guess not if you can just make things up to squeeze them into. But honestly consider this: if your suggested notion is correct, why flee to Egypt, which would involve passing through Judea, when they were already safe in Nazareth? Fleeing south from Bethleham makes sense, but from Galilee? That puts them right in the kill zone.

Tell me, do you consider the Bible, Old and New, the Word of God, and what do you think of the other books seen as sacred to other religions?
I consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God. But, in all fairness, that may mean differant things to differant people. For example, the fact that Matthew and Luke stand in unresolvable tension to any honest/fearless reading does not take away from the importance of the books.

Having read the old testament of the bible a lifetime ago i remember it as being the most vile and sinister book ever written about the most vile and sinister people on the face of the earth at that point in time.

Obviously I do not believe that that every word in the Bible is true.

I don't either.

There are contradictions in it that make it impossible for both differing accounts to be true. Ergo, at least one of them is false. And their are myriad such contradictions.

Ergo, it is not logical or reasonable to assert that said book --the Bible-- is the work of an omniscient, omipotent being. This is a being that we are to believe is capable of creating a trillion suns by the wave of his hand.......yet we are to also believe he was incapable of bringing into existence a book without errors or contradictions?!?!?

If this purported being were omnipotent, it would be possible for him to write --or cause to be written-- a book that was perfect in all accounts.

That does not prove it it invalid, anymore than the history books we read are invalid.

I disagree entirely.

And --unlike the Bible-- none of the history books I have read have ever been attributed to the work of a "perfect" omnipotent being. None of the history books claim to be the absolute guide to "everlasting life" if the precepts found within are followed. None of the history books in question urge the reader to base his entire life on the veracity of what is contained within.

Personally I think religion was invented to control the masses. Believing in the supernatural is not healthy. I hate when politicians flaunt the fact that they are born again or religious on us. You know it's just to get votes. I don't care if they go to church or worship 20 gods just leave it out of politics.

I agree that religion should be kept out of politics. However, it's my opinion that believing in something bigger than yourself can be immensely healthy. How could it be unhealthy?

It is funny how there are so many sides to this. And it is funny how God works for some people and not for others, wether they believe in Him or not.

And there is no way to prove anything about God or Jesus, anything at all.

Wether God and Jesus are real or not, I don't care. I personally think that They as a concept, is a good idea, real or not. But that is just my personal opinion. And that is probably all it will ever be :)

Tuck