Luke, Matthew and the Christmas Pageant Myths.

10,933 Views | 118 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Oldbear83
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The only two birth narratives of Jesus are found in Luke and Matthew. Not only are these two accounts contradictory and at odds with each other, they are also at odds with history. Throw in the annual Christmas pageant with any critical analysis of Luke/Matthew, and the three differing accounts expose the myths surrounding Jesus birth.
Midnight Rider
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Some of it actually happened.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Birth no doubt. Most of the rest not likely.
Midnight Rider
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So what? Does that detract from his message?
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It exposes the lack of credibility of the NT writings. It also underscores that we don't truly know what his message really was, other than he was likely an apocalyptic preacher, preaching the coming destruction and kingdom of god before the end of that generation - and that may be a stretch. Whatever his message, apparently it got him killed, which was unexpected.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Birth no doubt. Most of the rest not likely.


Why is it so important for you to go down this road all the time.

Don't recall anyone constantly starting threads bashing atheism.

Live and let live doesn't work for you ?

fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Birth no doubt. Most of the rest not likely.
I'm interested. What exactly did not happen?
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It isn't that hard to harmonize the accounts. GIFY. Merry Christmas!
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

It isn't that hard to harmonize the accounts. GIFY. Merry Christmas!
I found this...

On the eighth day after his birth Jesus is circumcised according to the law of God (Luke 2:21). Wise men from the East (Magi), after seeing and following a "star" (almost certainly an angel) for two years, seek Herod the Great's assistance in Jerusalem (Matthew 2:1 - 3). The appearance of such dignitaries, in a huge caravan, causes great concern for Herod and the city. Although Herod does not have a clue of where the Messiah was to be born he asks the priests and scribes if they knew (verse 4).

Jesus is brought to Jerusalem's temple, after forty days of purification required by God's law, to be presented before God. His parents make an offering to the temple of two young birds. It is also during their visit to the temple that a priest named Simeon, prophesied about his mission in life and blessed his parents (Luke 2:22 - 35).
Before Mary and Joseph leave the temple a woman named Anna, a widowed prophetess who lived in the house of God, blesses them as well (Luke 2:36 - 38). The family returns to Bethlehem.
The priests and scribes inform Herod that the Christ would be born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:5 - 6). Herod encourages the Magi to find the Christ child (feigning he wants to worship him as well) then report back to him (verses 7 - 8). After leaving Jerusalem, the Magi notice the "star" that brought them to Judea has appeared again! It leads them directly to a house (NOT a manger!) where they find Mary and Jesus.

Finding them in a home, they offer their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh (Matthew 2:9 - 11). The Magi, after being warned in a dream, do not return to Jerusalem to report back to Herod (verse 12). An angel, after the wise men leave Bethlehem, tells Joseph (in a dream) to flee to Egypt because Herod will soon want to kill his child (verses 13 - 15).
It should be noted that Herod the Great was not seeking to worship Jesus as the "King of the Jews" (Matthew 2:2). Herod, in 40 B.C., was given this title by the Roman Senate and saw Christ as a potential rival to his throne. He wanted to know the exact location of where Jesus was born in order to KILL him! He flies into a rage when he discovers the Magi are not coming back to Jerusalem to give him the information he wants (verse 16). He then orders the cold blooded MURDER of all Bethlehem area males two years old and younger (verses 16 - 18).

After Herod dies in early 4 B.C. an angel of the Lord again appears to Joseph, in a dream, and tells him it is safe to return to Israel (Matthew 2:19 - 21). Joseph, after arriving in Judea, discovers Herod Archelaus now reigns in the area.
Fearful of going back and living in Bethlehem, Joseph is instructed in a dream to go to Galilee (Matthew 2:22 - 23, Luke 2:39). The family makes the long trip and goes back to living in Nazareth. In conclusion, both Matthew and Luke are correct in regard to their accounts of Jesus' birth. Their complimentary record not only shows their record was true (and not simply copied) but gives us added details regarding one of the greatest events in the Bible!
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

TexasScientist said:

Birth no doubt. Most of the rest not likely.
I'm interested. What exactly did not happen?
Chirping crickets duly noted.
Midnight Rider
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

It also underscores that we don't truly know what his message really was . . .
Well, yeah, there wasn't a stenographer following him around taking down his every word.

His message was spread word of mouth in Aramic over several decades, and eventually translated into Greek.

In a court of law a lawyer would go berserk screaming "Hearsay!".

But his message, or at least our present understanding of it, has great value.
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Midnight Rider said:

TexasScientist said:

It also underscores that we don't truly know what his message really was . . .
Well, yeah, there wasn't a stenographer following him around taking down his every word.

His message was spread word of mouth in Aramic over several decades, and eventually translated into Greek.

In a court of law a lawyer would go berserk screaming "Hearsay!".

But his message, or at least our present understanding of it, has great value.


Here's an interesting book containing a lawyer's take on the Gospels:

https://www.pamelaewen.com/books/faith-on-trial/

Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Does anyone else find TS's posts interesting when he gets his monthly copy of Atheists Illustrated?

I can't wait to see what he posts for the 2019 Lenten/Easter seasons.
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

The only two birth narratives of Jesus are found in Luke and Matthew. Not only are these two accounts contradictory and at odds with each other, they are also at odds with history. Throw in the annual Christmas pageant with any critical analysis of Luke/Matthew, and the three differing accounts expose the myths surrounding Jesus birth.
Why were the narratives written TS?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

The only two birth narratives of Jesus are found in Luke and Matthew. Not only are these two accounts contradictory and at odds with each other, they are also at odds with history. Throw in the annual Christmas pageant with any critical analysis of Luke/Matthew, and the three differing accounts expose the myths surrounding Jesus birth.
A tantalizing preview of things to come, I hope. When do we get to see the full critical analysis?
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

The only two birth narratives of Jesus are found in Luke and Matthew. Not only are these two accounts contradictory and at odds with each other, they are also at odds with history. Throw in the annual Christmas pageant with any critical analysis of Luke/Matthew, and the three differing accounts expose the myths surrounding Jesus birth.
What about the 500+ witnesses who saw Jesus die then saw him after he was raised from the dead?
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear said:

TexasScientist said:

The only two birth narratives of Jesus are found in Luke and Matthew. Not only are these two accounts contradictory and at odds with each other, they are also at odds with history. Throw in the annual Christmas pageant with any critical analysis of Luke/Matthew, and the three differing accounts expose the myths surrounding Jesus birth.
What about the 500+ witnesses who saw Jesus die then saw him after he was raised from the dead?
Also, every one of the 11 remaining disciples (after Judas Iscariot's suicide) who were described as a terrified, intimidated and disillusioned bunch between the crucifixion and the resurrection, went on after the resurrection to all be martyred or in the case of the Apostle John exiled (after an attempted execution failed), clearly suffering greatly for their unrelenting desire to spread the Gospel, including violent tortuous deaths. Does it make any sense whatsoever that to a man all of them would go through anything like that just to perpetuate some kind of a bizzare hoax??
Prairie_Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

riflebear said:

TexasScientist said:

The only two birth narratives of Jesus are found in Luke and Matthew. Not only are these two accounts contradictory and at odds with each other, they are also at odds with history. Throw in the annual Christmas pageant with any critical analysis of Luke/Matthew, and the three differing accounts expose the myths surrounding Jesus birth.
What about the 500+ witnesses who saw Jesus die then saw him after he was raised from the dead?
Also, every one of the 11 remaining disciples (after Judas Iscariot's suicide) who were described as a terrified, intimidated and disillusioned bunch between the crucifixion and the resurrection, went on after the resurrection to all be martyred or in the case of the Apostle John exiled (after an attempted execution failed), clearly suffering greatly for their unrelenting desire to spread the Gospel, including violent tortuous deaths. Does it make any sense whatsoever that to a man all of them would go through anything like that just to perpetuate some kind of a bizzare hoax??
I can't speak for TS, but plenty of people throughout history were influential enough to get people to die for them (Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, etc, etc) not sure that is indicative of anything other than they had large amounts of influence over a small group of people much like Jesus had at the time.

I don't think anyone doubts the disciples didn't believe what they believed, however the context of the world at the time (they had no way of knowing anything else) and what they knew (or didn't know) about the world/science around them should be considered in their interpretations or the decades after interpretations by authors of their interpretations.

I think it is safe to say you are not exactly an open minded person, so I'll leave it at that!
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prairie_Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

riflebear said:

TexasScientist said:

The only two birth narratives of Jesus are found in Luke and Matthew. Not only are these two accounts contradictory and at odds with each other, they are also at odds with history. Throw in the annual Christmas pageant with any critical analysis of Luke/Matthew, and the three differing accounts expose the myths surrounding Jesus birth.
What about the 500+ witnesses who saw Jesus die then saw him after he was raised from the dead?
Also, every one of the 11 remaining disciples (after Judas Iscariot's suicide) who were described as a terrified, intimidated and disillusioned bunch between the crucifixion and the resurrection, went on after the resurrection to all be martyred or in the case of the Apostle John exiled (after an attempted execution failed), clearly suffering greatly for their unrelenting desire to spread the Gospel, including violent tortuous deaths. Does it make any sense whatsoever that to a man all of them would go through anything like that just to perpetuate some kind of a bizzare hoax??
I can't speak for TS, but plenty of people throughout history were influential enough to get people to die for them (Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, etc, etc) not sure that is indicative of anything other than they had large amounts of influence over a small group of people much like Jesus had at the time.

I don't think anyone doubts the disciples didn't believe what they believed, however the context of the world at the time (they had no way of knowing anything else) and what they knew (or didn't know) about the world/science around them should be considered in their interpretations or the decades after interpretations by authors of their interpretations.

I think it is safe to say you are not exactly an open minded person, so I'll leave it at that!


80 years after the Crucifixion, Pliny wrote to the Emperor Trajan about executing Christians who refused to recant. Will people still be dying for David Koresh or Jim Jones 80 years later?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prairie_Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

riflebear said:

TexasScientist said:

The only two birth narratives of Jesus are found in Luke and Matthew. Not only are these two accounts contradictory and at odds with each other, they are also at odds with history. Throw in the annual Christmas pageant with any critical analysis of Luke/Matthew, and the three differing accounts expose the myths surrounding Jesus birth.
What about the 500+ witnesses who saw Jesus die then saw him after he was raised from the dead?
Also, every one of the 11 remaining disciples (after Judas Iscariot's suicide) who were described as a terrified, intimidated and disillusioned bunch between the crucifixion and the resurrection, went on after the resurrection to all be martyred or in the case of the Apostle John exiled (after an attempted execution failed), clearly suffering greatly for their unrelenting desire to spread the Gospel, including violent tortuous deaths. Does it make any sense whatsoever that to a man all of them would go through anything like that just to perpetuate some kind of a bizzare hoax??
I can't speak for TS, but plenty of people throughout history were influential enough to get people to die for them (Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, etc, etc) not sure that is indicative of anything other than they had large amounts of influence over a small group of people much like Jesus had at the time.

I don't think anyone doubts the disciples didn't believe what they believed, however the context of the world at the time (they had no way of knowing anything else) and what they knew (or didn't know) about the world/science around them should be considered in their interpretations or the decades after interpretations by authors of their interpretations.

I think it is safe to say you are not exactly an open minded person, so I'll leave it at that!

Those people believed what they were told; Jesus' disciples believed what they saw and heard firsthand.

Would Jesus' disciples leave home, family, and job and ultimately suffer and lose their lives, to proclaim something they knew firsthand to be false or made up?

Edmond Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prairie_Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

riflebear said:

TexasScientist said:

The only two birth narratives of Jesus are found in Luke and Matthew. Not only are these two accounts contradictory and at odds with each other, they are also at odds with history. Throw in the annual Christmas pageant with any critical analysis of Luke/Matthew, and the three differing accounts expose the myths surrounding Jesus birth.
What about the 500+ witnesses who saw Jesus die then saw him after he was raised from the dead?
Also, every one of the 11 remaining disciples (after Judas Iscariot's suicide) who were described as a terrified, intimidated and disillusioned bunch between the crucifixion and the resurrection, went on after the resurrection to all be martyred or in the case of the Apostle John exiled (after an attempted execution failed), clearly suffering greatly for their unrelenting desire to spread the Gospel, including violent tortuous deaths. Does it make any sense whatsoever that to a man all of them would go through anything like that just to perpetuate some kind of a bizzare hoax??
I can't speak for TS, but plenty of people throughout history were influential enough to get people to die for them (Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, etc, etc) not sure that is indicative of anything other than they had large amounts of influence over a small group of people much like Jesus had at the time.

I don't think anyone doubts the disciples didn't believe what they believed, however the context of the world at the time (they had no way of knowing anything else) and what they knew (or didn't know) about the world/science around them should be considered in their interpretations or the decades after interpretations by authors of their interpretations.

I think it is safe to say you are not exactly an open minded person, so I'll leave it at that!


Sure, but would you die for something you KNOW is a lie?

riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Great points above.

Plus Paul being a murderer of Christians then Being the one to write 13 books of the Bible after meeting him and turning his life around. Calling himself the Chief of sinners for his past.

Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stories especially Luke to match up with Cesar Augustus as the son of god. Like is pointing to the "True Son of God" with all kinds of parallels to Augustus. Luke's timetable is scrrwed up. No census in his reign. The Governor does not match his reign. BUT Luke's intent is to say Jesus is human born of a woman. Augustus's biographer is to Sugustis is God Two quite fifferentbintenys.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Does the story change over time?

LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can you trust the gospels?

Midnight Rider
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear said:

Great points above.

Plus Paul being a murderer of Christians then Being the one to write 13 books of the Bible after meeting him and turning his life around. Calling himself the Chief of sinners for his past.


Paul never met Jesus.
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Midnight Rider said:

riflebear said:

Great points above.

Plus Paul being a murderer of Christians then Being the one to write 13 books of the Bible after meeting him and turning his life around. Calling himself the Chief of sinners for his past.


Paul never met Jesus.
Probably, but I'm not a theologian.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/can-paul-be-considered-a-witness-if-he-never-actually-saw-jesus/
Prairie_Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JXL said:





80 years after the Crucifixion, Pliny wrote to the Emperor Trajan about executing Christians who refused to recant. Will people still be dying for David Koresh or Jim Jones 80 years later?
Doubt it, or at least I hope not. I'm no expert on those cults, but I believe they all predicted something that didn't happen, and given the way information disseminates today (vs. 2,000 years ago) false claims (apocalypse, etc) die out much quicker.

Quote:

Those people believed what they were told; Jesus' disciples believed what they saw and heard firsthand. Would Jesus' disciples leave home, family, and job and ultimately suffer and lose their lives, to proclaim something they knew firsthand to be false or made up?
Edmond and tarp, read my 2nd paragraph in both your quotes. Additionally, have you seen the "miracles" Koresh did? I know I saw a few many years ago on youtube or something (unsure of validity). Again, they "believed" too.

Quick genuine question(s), do either one of you (or anyone) think Koresh, Applewhite, Jones would have been viewed differently in history had they existed in 30 A.D.? Do you feel the intelligence a.k.a critical thinking level of Biblical populations was more advanced, less advanced, or the same as today (or last 40 years)? Lastly for a specific example, how would the people of Biblical times interpreted a tsunami or volcano? Would they have attributed them to normal, explainable environmental science or would they have thought God was angry with them?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I believe the Biblical accounts. I take great comfort in the grace shown by God, not only in granting His Son to live among us, but also His kindness and humility in the time and manner of Jesus' life.

I understand that some would rather believe in nothing, in the peculiar preference to trust in random or chaotic incidents rather than a loving guide sent by God. A cold, barren perspective with bleak prospects from where I stand, but you are welcome to that choice.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prairie Bear, did you watch either video I posted above? If so, do you care to comment?
El Oso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Prairie Bear, did you watch either video I posted above? If so, do you care to comment?
I only watched video one. I'll watch two later.

I like his comparison to the gun and chain of evidence. But this is a problem.

Tradition says John wrote John--but that's not a proven thing.

Since it isn't a proven thing, there may be a chain of custody issue with John. And, much like you would with that bullet casing if there was a question about the chain of evidence--the evidence gets thrown out.



Edmond Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prairie_Bear said:

JXL said:





80 years after the Crucifixion, Pliny wrote to the Emperor Trajan about executing Christians who refused to recant. Will people still be dying for David Koresh or Jim Jones 80 years later?
Doubt it, or at least I hope not. I'm no expert on those cults, but I believe they all predicted something that didn't happen, and given the way information disseminates today (vs. 2,000 years ago) false claims (apocalypse, etc) die out much quicker.

Quote:

Those people believed what they were told; Jesus' disciples believed what they saw and heard firsthand. Would Jesus' disciples leave home, family, and job and ultimately suffer and lose their lives, to proclaim something they knew firsthand to be false or made up?
Edmond and tarp, read my 2nd paragraph in both your quotes. Additionally, have you seen the "miracles" Koresh did? I know I saw a few many years ago on youtube or something (unsure of validity). Again, they "believed" too.

Quick genuine question(s), do either one of you (or anyone) think Koresh, Applewhite, Jones would have been viewed differently in history had they existed in 30 A.D.? Do you feel the intelligence a.k.a critical thinking level of Biblical populations was more advanced, less advanced, or the same as today (or last 40 years)? Lastly for a specific example, how would the people of Biblical times interpreted a tsunami or volcano? Would they have attributed them to normal, explainable environmental science or would they have thought God was angry with them?


I think Koresh, Applewhite, and Jones could have been believed the same as Jesus was in 30AD. There were plenty of false messiahs running around in the day with groups of disciples. So, they were probably believed the same as Jesus...until they died and were not resurrected.

When Jesus was resurrected, it changed everything.

_____


Koresh's followers died for him not knowing he was lying.

If Jesus' disciples knew that Jesus died and also knew he did not come back to life (His statements were a lie) then do you think they would die for Him knowing it was a lie? Would you die for something you know is a lie?







LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
El Oso said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Prairie Bear, did you watch either video I posted above? If so, do you care to comment?
I only watched video one. I'll watch two later.

I like his comparison to the gun and chain of evidence. But this is a problem.

Tradition says John wrote John--but that's not a proven thing.

Since it isn't a proven thing, there may be a chain of custody issue with John. And, much like you would with that bullet casing if there was a question about the chain of evidence--the evidence gets thrown out.




Im out of my league but, would assume Polycarp et al have writings that, while may not "prove" John wrote John, probably supply a fair amount of circumstantial evidence.

Dr Pitts, where are you???
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

El Oso said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Prairie Bear, did you watch either video I posted above? If so, do you care to comment?
I only watched video one. I'll watch two later.

I like his comparison to the gun and chain of evidence. But this is a problem.

Tradition says John wrote John--but that's not a proven thing.

Since it isn't a proven thing, there may be a chain of custody issue with John. And, much like you would with that bullet casing if there was a question about the chain of evidence--the evidence gets thrown out.




Im out of my league but, would assume Polycarp et al have writings that, while may not "prove" John wrote John, probably supply a fair amount of circumstantial evidence.

Dr Pitts, where are you???


Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John. Irenaeus wrote:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

***

At no point was the Gospel of John ever attributed to anyone else. There were no competing claims of authorship - church tradition and history were unanimous in considering that the gospel was written by John. (By contrast, the church had no difficulty rejecting such spurious works as Thomas and the Acts of Peter, so it's not like they uncritically accepted everything that came their way).

Is this irrefutable proof? Nope. But it's very strong circumstantial evidence that John wrote the Gospel bearing his name.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Gospels are exceptionally reliable history for their time. The so-called problems with their accuracy wouldn't be problems by any normal standard. For example, the first four accounts of Alexander the Great's life were written three to five centuries after his death. To have four accounts of Jesus' life within 30-50 years is extraordinary. Of course there are minor discrepancies, as in all such cases. It would be surprising if there weren't.
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.