Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: columbusdude82 on October 12, 2007, 03:47:12 PM
-
Well, did he? Let's read the Gospels. Mark and John are completely silent on the birth of Jesus and don't tell us any stories, so let's look at Matthew and Luke.
First, Matthew (Chapter 2):
8He (Herod) sent them to Bethlehem and said, "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."
9After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east[e] went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. 12And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.
13When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." 14So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."[f]
Next, Luke (Chapter 2):
21On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.
22When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord"), 24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."...
39When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. 40And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.
Make up your minds guys. Did the Baby Jesus go to Egypt or didn't he?
-
Well, did he? Let's read the Gospels. Mark and John are completely silent on the birth of Jesus and don't tell us any stories, so let's look at Matthew and Luke.
First, Matthew (Chapter 2):
Next, Luke (Chapter 2):
Make up your minds guys. Did the Baby Jesus go to Egypt or didn't he?
Just one of dozens of examples of incongruities and evidence that the Gospels are a load of bad fiction. And yet this is the only 'biographical' information on the godman. We have nothing else save the Gospels. Another one is the contradiction in birth dates:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html
Take the time to read it, very interesting and well worth the time...
-
well guys, this place is full of contradictions about the big book
http://www.evilbible.com/
-
Well, did he? Let's read the Gospels. Mark and John are completely silent on the birth of Jesus and don't tell us any stories, so let's look at Matthew and Luke.
First, Matthew (Chapter 2):
Next, Luke (Chapter 2):
Make up your minds guys. Did the Baby Jesus go to Egypt or didn't he?
Yes.
Matthew was written mainly to the Jews so he probably found it very important to include the account of the Magi and Herod and the flight to Egypt to show them how (at least) 2 prophecies mentioned in the Old Testament were fulfilled. This would have had great importance for the Jews.
Luke's account not mentioning Herod/Egypt does not preclude it from having happened (Luke was written mainly to the Gentiles).
Some people tend to confuse the shepherds in Luke w/the Magi in Matthew. This makes it hard for them to realize that Jesus could have been almost (but not past according to the Magi's info regarding the exact time the star appeared) 2 years old when the Magi saw Him. In fact, Matthew states that when the Magi did see Him, He was in a house (not a manger). The shepherds were the ones that saw him in a manger (as an infant).
Another thing to consider is that Herod had ordered all boys ages 2 and younger in Bethlehem and the vicinity to be killed. Why would he do that unless he got info from the Magi that the star had appeared between zero and 2 years before (more than likely closer to the 2 year mark)?
If the Magi didn't see Jesus until 2 years or even one year after He had been born, the family had plenty of time to go to Jerusalem, back to Nazareth, then back to Bethlehem.
So as I see it, yes, the child (somewhere under 2 years old) Jesus went to Egypt.
Thanks for the bible study inspiration columbusdude. It made me excited for Christmas :)
-
Yes.
Matthew was written mainly to the Jews so he probably found it very important to include the account of the Magi and Herod and the flight to Egypt to show them how (at least) 2 prophecies mentioned in the Old Testament were fulfilled. This would have had great importance for the Jews.
Luke's account not mentioning Herod/Egypt does not preclude it from having happened (Luke was written mainly to the Gentiles).
Some people tend to confuse the shepherds in Luke w/the Magi in Matthew. This makes it hard for them to realize that Jesus could have been almost (but not past according to the Magi's info regarding the exact time the star appeared) 2 years old when the Magi saw Him. In fact, Matthew states that when the Magi did see Him, He was in a house (not a manger). The shepherds were the ones that saw him in a manger (as an infant).
Another thing to consider is that Herod had ordered all boys ages 2 and younger in Bethlehem and the vicinity to be killed. Why would he do that unless he got info from the Magi that the star had appeared between zero and 2 years before (more than likely closer to the 2 year mark)?
If the Magi didn't see Jesus until 2 years or even one year after He had been born, the family had plenty of time to go to Jerusalem, back to Nazareth, then back to Bethlehem.
So as I see it, yes, the child (somewhere under 2 years old) Jesus went to Egypt.
Thanks for the bible study inspiration columbusdude. It made me excited for Christmas :)
::)
-
::)
:)
-
:)
You don't consider the NT to be an historically accurate document do you?
-
Stella, do you know of any historical records telling of Herod's slaughter of the children? You'd think historians and chroniclers would have written about an event like that...
And you skip over the fact that the itineraries mentioned by the two gospels are contradictory:
Matthew says "Bethlehem - Egypt - return to Nazareth after Herod's death"
Luke says "Bethlehem - Jerusalem - Nazareth"
Your itinerary is Bethlehem - Jerusalem - Nazareth - Bethlehem - Egypt?????? Why the second trip to Bethlehem? Just so the two gospels don't seem to contradict each other?
-
Stella, do you know of any historical records telling of Herod's slaughter of the children? You'd think historians and chroniclers would have written about an event like that...
And you skip over the fact that the itineraries mentioned by the two gospels are contradictory:
Matthew says "Bethlehem - Egypt - return to Nazareth after Herod's death"
Luke says "Bethlehem - Jerusalem - Nazareth"
Your itinerary is Bethlehem - Jerusalem - Nazareth - Bethlehem - Egypt?????? Why the second trip to Bethlehem? Just so the two gospels don't seem to contradict each other?
Herod's slaughter of the innocents was copied right out of the Book of Exodus, like a whole bunch of other stuff in the NT.
-
Well, that may be, but getting back on topic:
Stella, is your itinerary speculation or revelation? What kind of Roving Gnome (c) would send this poor family to Jerusalem to the temple, then back home to Galilee, then to Bethlehem for NO OTHER REASON than to meet some rich old guys following a star (that no other records mention), then off to Egypt to hide?
Presumably, since they couldn't find any lodging in Bethlehem the first time around, they didn't have any connections there, so did they stay out on the streets the second time as well? And all just to meet the rich old guys? Why couldn't they have traveled a few miles north to Nazareth, considering they'd come so far?
Methinks Stella needs to reconsider her Travelocity...
-
Well, that may be, but getting back on topic:
Stella, is your itinerary speculation or revelation? What kind of Roving Gnome (c) would send this poor family to Jerusalem to the temple, then back home to Galilee, then to Bethlehem for NO OTHER REASON than to meet some rich old guys following a star (that no other records mention), then off to Egypt to hide?
Presumably, since they couldn't find any lodging in Bethlehem the first time around, they didn't have any connections there, so did they stay out on the streets the second time as well? And all just to meet the rich old guys? Why couldn't they have traveled a few miles north to Nazareth, considering they'd come so far?
Methinks Stella needs to reconsider her Travelocity...
Nazareth didn't exist at the time. See my thread on the subject.
-
Nazareth didn't exist at the time. See my thread on the subject.
Yes I've seen it. There's also the point made by Prof. James Tabor about how Nazareth was, at the time, a tiny ramshackle village on the outskirts of Sipphorim (sp?).
BTW Tabor is a very good, very enthusiastic Biblical scholar. I highly recommend his writing. But getting back on topic, I am just wondering how Stella justifies her itinerary. She sacrifices common sense and parsimonious planning only to be able to claim that the gospels didn't contradict each other.
-
You dont honor bets columbus"dude"?
-
Yes I've seen it. There's also the point made by Prof. James Tabor about how Nazareth was, at the time, a tiny ramshackle village on the outskirts of Sipphorim (sp?).
BTW Tabor is a very good, very enthusiastic Biblical scholar. I highly recommend his writing. But getting back on topic, I am just wondering how Stella justifies her itinerary. She sacrifices common sense and parsimonious planning only to be able to claim that the gospels didn't contradict each other.
She's a fundy, what else do you expect?
-
columbusdude, maybe it will help you to see what I'm saying if you read Matthew Chapter 2 starting at the beginning:
-----------------------------------
Matthew 2
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."
When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:
" 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'"
Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "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 they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.
The Escape to Egypt
When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."
When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
"A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more."
The Return to Nazareth
After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead."
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. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
--------------------------------
Coldude, do you see that the Magi didn't even initially speak w/Herod until sometime after Jesus was born? They went to Jerusalem from the East and were asking around about Him. Herod heard about it and consulted w/a bunch of people. Eventually he talked to the Magi. Then he sent them to Bethlehem. Then the Magi went to the "house" - not the manger...they weren't hanging out in the manger anymore - this had to have been at least a month after Christ's birth as the purification ritual was over a a month, right? The fact that Herod issued a command for all boys 2 years old and under has some meaning don't you agree?
-
Yes, I have read Matthew 2. The question in this thread is: did the Baby Jesus go to Egypt or not?
-
Fucking lame; the NT can't even get baby Jesus' birth date right and Stella goes on about more magic nonsense... ::)
-
Stella, do you know of any historical records telling of Herod's slaughter of the children? You'd think historians and chroniclers would have written about an event like that...
And you skip over the fact that the itineraries mentioned by the two gospels are contradictory:
Matthew says "Bethlehem - Egypt - return to Nazareth after Herod's death"
Luke says "Bethlehem - Jerusalem - Nazareth"
Your itinerary is Bethlehem - Jerusalem - Nazareth - Bethlehem - Egypt?????? Why the second trip to Bethlehem? Just so the two gospels don't seem to contradict each other?
How are they contradictory?
Luke says "Bethlehem - Jerusalem - Nazareth" - The events that happened shortly before and after Jesus' birth
Matthew says "Bethlehem - Egypt - return to Nazareth after Herod's death" The events that happened approximately two years later.
Luke says that Joseph, Mary, and the infant Jesus made their FIRST trip to the temple, after Mary's purification was complete (Luke 2:22). Once that was done, they went back to Nazareth. Since going to the Temple was a YEARLY event (Luke 2:41), it would appear that, on their THIRD trip with Jesus, the edict came from Herod to slaughter all boys 2 years old and under.
Some people tend to confuse the shepherds in Luke w/the Magi in Matthew. This makes it hard for them to realize that Jesus could have been almost (but not past according to the Magi's info regarding the exact time the star appeared) 2 years old when the Magi saw Him. In fact, Matthew states that when the Magi did see Him, He was in a house (not a manger). The shepherds were the ones that saw him in a manger (as an infant).
I don't think people confuse the shepherds and the wise men. The Christmas story is often told and depicted (i.e. Nativity scenes), with the wise men seeing baby Jesus, immediately after the shepherds do. But, reading both Matthew and Luke doesn't show that such was the case.
Coldude, do you see that the Magi didn't even initially speak w/Herod until sometime after Jesus was born? They went to Jerusalem from the East and were asking around about Him. Herod heard about it and consulted w/a bunch of people. Eventually he talked to the Magi. Then he sent them to Bethlehem. Then the Magi went to the "house" - not the manger...they weren't hanging out in the manger anymore - this had to have been at least a month after Christ's birth as the purification ritual was over a a month, right? The fact that Herod issued a command for all boys 2 years old and under has some meaning don't you agree?
That period is about six weeks (Lev.12:1-4).
It's really simple: Luke tells of the events that happens when Jesus was a small infant; Matthew tells of what happened, when Jesus was about a 2-year old toddler. These gospels complement one another; therefore, to get a more complete picture of the events of Jesus' early life, it helps to use BOTH Gospels.
-
Fucking lame; the NT can't even get baby Jesus' birth date right and Stella goes on about more magic nonsense... ::)
Herod's slaughter of the innocents was copied right out of the Book of Exodus, like a whole bunch of other stuff in the NT.
And, the chapter and verse in Exodus, that states all males 2 years and under were to be killed, would be.........
You got some facts to support either of these statements, or is this yet another of your speculations that you can't back?
-
McWay, if what you are saying is true, why the second trip to Bethlehem????
-
McWay, if what you are saying is true, why the second trip to Bethlehem????
Bethlehem and Jerusalem were only about 5 miles apart. My guess would be that Bethlehem was better suited for lodging.
-
So we are now in the realm of speculation.
-
So we are now in the realm of speculation.
Not really!!! They went to Bethlehem once to find lodging; why wouldn't they go back again, if they are making the annual trip to the Temple in Jeursalem.
You made the claim that the accounts were contradictory, based on your assumption that they are talking about the exact same time period, regarding Jesus' early life and that Joseph and Mary only made one trip to Jerusalem.
But, as Luke 2:41 states, they went to Jerusalem every year. So, that explains the "second trip to Bethlehem", given its close proximity to Jerusalem. Although, by my count, it would have been their THIRD trip: The first, when Jesus was six weeks old; the second, when Jesus was one; and the third when Jesus was two.
-
Nice job at coming up with an explanation. It is speculation because it is not substantiated by the accounts in the gospels (quoted in the first post). Matthew 2 (quoted by Stella above) gives the impression that the wise men's visit occurred in the immediate aftermath of the birth of Jesus: "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem..."
It doesn't say ANYTHING about a time lag, so that is purely speculation on your part, in order to convince yourself and others that the gospels don't contradict each other.
-
PS: McWay, you seem to have taken advanced courses in Christian apologetics from a Southern Baptist seminary ;) I'd like to see you take a crack at another thread on here, entitled "The authority of scripture, if only they could agree." It will be interesting to see what you have to say there!
-
Nice job at coming up with an explanation. It is speculation because it is not substantiated by the accounts in the gospels (quoted in the first post). Matthew 2 (quoted by Stella above) gives the impression that the wise men's visit occurred in the immediate aftermath of the birth of Jesus: "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem..."
It doesn't say ANYTHING about a time lag, so that is purely speculation on your part, in order to convince yourself and others that the gospels don't contradict each other.
I'm afraid your conclusion is an incorrect one. Matthew 2's account doesn't state that the wise men arrived immediately after Jesus' birth. And the proof is right in that very chapter, which you claim to have read and that Stella posted: Herod's order to kill all boys TWO YEARS and under. If Jesus is a newborn when the wise men find Him, why is Herod killing two years old (those ain't newborns)?
Verse 7 states that Herod got the age from his consulation from the wise men AND his own priests, Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "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."
As for this portion of the text,
"After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem..."
Unless you see the word, "immediately", in this verse, this part does nothing to suggest that the wise men arrived to see Jesus as a newborn infant. This may come as a shock to you, but a two-year gap in time qualifies as "after Jesus was born".
That's no speculation; it's right there in the gospel of Matthew. Again, you asked why Joseph and Mary made a "second trip to Bethelem", accusing Stella of making such up to show that the accounts in Luke and Matthew weren't contradictory (as you allege they are). But, Luke 2:41 states that they went to Jerusalem every year. So, that answers that question right there.
And, their first trip to the temple (with Jesus) occured, when Jesus was approximately six weeks old.
A third trip, when Jesus was two, would explain how and when the wise men found him.
PS: McWay, you seem to have taken advanced courses in Christian apologetics from a Southern Baptist seminary I'd like to see you take a crack at another thread on here, entitled "The authority of scripture, if only they could agree." It will be interesting to see what you have to say there!
Nope!! Personal study and use of the internet. These accusations aren't new (and neither is the evidence that refutes them).
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA "evidence"...
-
I admire your zeal in reverse-engineering the stories so they seem to match and trying to fill in all the gaps, but I must say I am not convinced. Even if what you say is true, it only shows the human origins of scripture. Any god who might have inspired or revealed these books to their writers certainly didn't do a good job of filling them in on the details. Such a god would be particularly careless to leave so many "seeming" contradictions wide open to "mis"interpretation...
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA "evidence"...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....."contradictory"
You asked the question; you got the answer. Of course, the question remains were you legitimately seeking an answer to that question; or are you, like Trapzekerl, simply looking for a platform to do your skeptic blubbering?
I admire your zeal in reverse-engineering the stories so they seem to match and trying to fill in all the gaps, but I must say I am not convinced. Even if what you say is true, it only shows the human origins of scripture. Any god who might have inspired or revealed these books to their writers certainly didn't do a good job of filling them in on the details. Such a god would be particularly careless to leave so many "seeming" contradictions wide open to "mis"interpretation...
I didn't engineer anything. The verses are there, for you (or anyone else) to read, which is why I referenced them.
You asked why they made a "second trip to Bethlehem"; the answer is in Luke 2:41
I don't care if you're "convinced" or not. As I stated earlier, I suspect that you aren't looking for an answer but for a platform to whine, instead of an answer to a question.
Again, unless you can show that verse 1 , After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem..." shows that the Magi's appearance was immediately after Jesus' birth, your claims of contradictions have no legs on which to stand.
Plus, you've yet to address the issue of why Herod would be ordering the death of two-year-old toddlers, if Jesus was a newborn infant, when the Magi (wise men) find Him. After all, Matt. 2:7 states that Herod calculated Jesus' approximate age from the data he got from the wise men and his priests.
The details are right there in Scripture.
-
About the slaughter of the children, until there is real historical evidence for it, it will remain just the figment of the evangelist's imagination. Since it did not occur in reality, it cannot be considered from a historical perspective as the self-interest-motivated actions of a jealous king. You presume that Herod thought that there was an infant out there that really presented a threat to his reign.
And yes, you did engineer your story. It is speculation. Matthew doesn't say they went back to Nazareth after Jesus was born. It doesn't mention a time lag. You speculate and present a reasonable, but not entirely convincing theory.
As for your accusations of "blubbering" and "whining," flattery will get you nowhere with me ;)
-
About the slaughter of the children, until there is real historical evidence for it, it will remain just the figment of the evangelist's imagination. Since it did not occur in reality, it cannot be considered from a historical perspective as the self-interest-motivated actions of a jealous king. You presume that Herod thought that there was an infant out there that really presented a threat to his reign.
I don't presume anything; it's right there in Matthew 2. The presuming is on your part, claiming that it didn't happen.
Who said it didn't occur in reality? Ahh, skeptics of course. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time people made that claim about Biblical evidence, only to be proven wrong.
And yes, you did engineer your story. It is speculation. Matthew doesn't say they went back to Nazareth after Jesus was born. It doesn't mention a time lag. You speculate and present a reasonable, but not entirely convincing theory.
Matthew doesn't state that they stayed in Bethlehem, either. Matthew doesn't talk about the events shortly after Jesus' birth; but Luke does. As stated earlier, I am using BOTH Gospels, with regards to the early events in Jesus' life.
As for your claim about Matthew 2, the "time lag" is mentioned, in the very same chapter: Herod is ordering the deaths of two-year old boys and under. He is guessing that Jesus is that age, based on data he got from the wise men and his priests.
One more time, why is Herod ordering the death of two-year olds, if Jesus was a newborn baby when the wise men found Him?
-
MCWAY, I'm grateful you're here because you state things so much better and more clearly than I!
columbusdude, I'm amazed and happy that you do concur that what we (and the scriptures) are saying is POSSIBLE, even if you don't want to think it's probable:
You speculate and present a reasonable, but not entirely convincing theory.
Good for you and for us. Maybe you really are looking for answers to your questions :)
OK, back to MCWAY's last question to you......
As for your claim about Matthew 2, the "time lag" is mentioned, in the very same chapter: Herod is ordering the deaths of two-year old boys and under. He is guessing that Jesus is that age, based on data he got from the wise men and his priests.
One more time, why is Herod ordering the death of two-year olds, if Jesus was a newborn baby when the wise men found Him?
-
the bible was a story written by the egyptians about astrology the sun "son" and the 12 zodiac (deciples). This book of astrology was written was before any religion and is practically identical to the books of "religion" in todays societies. when churches are asked how this book was written before their so called "god" was ever born they said it was "the work of the devil"
religion is a joke and the sooner we as a human species drop it the sooner we can advance as a race.
Lets leave this ancient hocus pocus behind
-
I don't presume anything; it's right there in Matthew 2. The presuming is on your part, claiming that it didn't happen.
Who said it didn't occur in reality? Ahh, skeptics of course. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time people made that claim about Biblical evidence, only to be proven wrong.
Matthew doesn't state that they stayed in Bethlehem, either. Matthew doesn't talk about the events shortly after Jesus' birth; but Luke does. As stated earlier, I am using BOTH Gospels, with regards to the early events in Jesus' life.
As for your claim about Matthew 2, the "time lag" is mentioned, in the very same chapter: Herod is ordering the deaths of two-year old boys and under. He is guessing that Jesus is that age, based on data he got from the wise men and his priests.
One more time, why is Herod ordering the death of two-year olds, if Jesus was a newborn baby when the wise men found Him?
So just because the Bible says that Herod ordered the slaughter of the children, then it must be true ::)
One more time, if Herod did order such a slaughter, surely it would have been recorded by a real historical source (as opposed to the gospels, a mythical-magical-theological source). Got any such sources?
-
So just because the Bible says that Herod ordered the slaughter of the children, then it must be true ::)
One more time, if Herod did order such a slaughter, surely it would have been recorded by a real historical source (as opposed to the gospels, a mythical-magical-theological source). Got any such sources?
Do you have evidence to the contrary? If not, then your claim that it didn't happen holds no weight. And please define a "real" historical source. Without such criteria, you have no rhyme nor reason to disqualify the Gospels (other than personal, anti-religious bias).
Plus, the issue here is that you made the claim that the gospels of Luke and Matthew are contradictory. And, your reason for such revolved around the events of Jesus' early life, specifically when the wise men found Him and the subsequent flight to Egypt.
Plus, you said that the wise men found Jesus as a newborn infant. Where's your support for that?
Luke and Matthew mention two different time periods. Luke speaks of the events surrounding Jesus as a newborn infant; Matthew speaks of events that happen....TWO YEARS LATER. Therefore, unless you can show that the wise men did indeed appear shortly after Jesus was born, your claim that those two Gospels contradict each other is false.
-
Hold on there, McWay. Let's go back to the first paragraph in your post. Do you see the methodological error you're making there?
The Gospels say Herod massacred the children. I say we have no historical sources corroborating that claim. You say, since we have no historical sources saying it DIDN'T happen, then it must be true.
The Gospels also say, for instance,
50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
(Matthew 27)
An earthquake that tears the curtain of the temple, opens the tombs, and brings the bodies of dead people back to life is a very, very unlikely event. There is no historical record of it. We have no records of first-century Jews in Jerusalem saying they saw the risen body of some long-dead holy person after an earthquake. If there had been such an earthquake that damaged the temple, surely there would have been some Jewish written record of it???
By your logic, since we don't have evidence against it (no one wrote "No, I did not see the body of Isaiah come back to life after the earthquake that tore the temple curtain this week") then it must have happened.
By your logic, since we have no ancient writings saying "The sun has not stopped, it keeps moving following its usual trajectory through the sky," then surely the sun must have stopped for Joshua.
Just because someone writes something, does not mean we all have to scramble to find evidence against it, or else it is true. Do you have evidence to contradict the events recorded in "Harry Potter" books? If not, then your disbelief in Harry Potter holds no weight ::)
-
OK McWay I am splitting up my reply over several posts for your convenience. :)
You ask why I don't think the Gospels are "historical" sources. Of course, they are, in a way. They are writings from the first century and just afterwards. Every historical source has to be treated with care, with attention to who wrote it, for whom, what their purposes were, whether it has been been tampered with since...
The writings of the ancient world are strewn with books about supernatural heroes with magical powers, all presented to us today with no evidence at all. It is an insult to your intelligence and mine to say that we must believe them because they are "historical," right?
You, in fact, are the one with the bias, not I, because you choose to accept uncritically the occurrence of highly unlikely events in one set of ancient writings, and dismiss others.
Of course, that's because you think there is something special about the gospels. Divine inspiration. The Holy Spirit. Right? And that's where you and the scientific methods of history part company, because history examines all old writings critically :)
-
Now finally getting back on topic, to the question of whether Baby Jesus did go to Egypt.
Once again, the theory you present is reasonable, but it is "reverse-engineered," in the sense that you (and others) read these accounts and filled in the gaps.
Now your theory is possible, or maybe the writers of these two books were reverse-engineering the story of Jesus's birth long after those events are supposed to have happened, and since they lived in the pre-Google era, couldn't check their facts together.
So your theory depends on the timing of the arrival of the wise men. Of course, we have no evidence that such men ever existed. And if they did, we have no way of verifying the timing of their visit (the Gospels don't say when they came, except at some point after the birth of Jesus).
Your theory is therefore reasonable, but neither verifiable nor falsifiable.
My claim, that the gospels can't get their stories right together, is based on just reading the texts without looking for excuses or gaps in the time-line: each gospel mentions an itinerary for travel after the birth of Jesus, they are contradictory.
Either the gospels contradict each other, or as you speculate, there is a gap in the time-line.
Which is it? I'd go with the contradiction, because Matthew doesn't mention anything about a gap, but your theory is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, so you can believe it all you like :)
-
Hold on there, McWay. Let's go back to the first paragraph in your post. Do you see the methodological error you're making there?
The Gospels say Herod massacred the children. I say we have no historical sources corroborating that claim. You say, since we have no historical sources saying it DIDN'T happen, then it must be true.
You are dismissing the verse about Herod ordering the slaying of boys two years and under, because it counters your claims that the gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other. It shows, as I've stated several times beforehand that Luke speaks the events immediately after Jesus' birth, while Matthew tells of what happens two years later. Those gospels complement each other, with each giving unique details that the other doesn't. That is not contradictory.
The Gospels also say, for instance,
(Matthew 27)
An earthquake that tears the curtain of the temple, opens the tombs, and brings the bodies of dead people back to life is a very, very unlikely event. There is no historical record of it. We have no records of first-century Jews in Jerusalem saying they saw the risen body of some long-dead holy person after an earthquake. If there had been such an earthquake that damaged the temple, surely there would have been some Jewish written record of it???
Last time I checked, Matthew was Jewish. And what makes you think that there was no other record of it? There may be one, that has yet to be unearthed. Regardless, this has little to do with your supporting the claim that those two gospels contradict each other, specifically your claim that the Magi found Jesus as newborn baby, instead of a two-year old toddler.
By your logic, since we don't have evidence against it (no one wrote "No, I did not see the body of Isaiah come back to life after the earthquake that tore the temple curtain this week") then it must have happened.
By your logic, since we have no ancient writings saying "The sun has not stopped, it keeps moving following its usual trajectory through the sky," then surely the sun must have stopped for Joshua.
Just because someone writes something, does not mean we all have to scramble to find evidence against it, or else it is true. Do you have evidence to contradict the events recorded in "Harry Potter" books? If not, then your disbelief in Harry Potter holds no weight ::)
Again, your claim regarding Herod's order is based, not on its lack of historicity, but on the fact that the account refutes your take, regarding when the Magi find Jesus.
-
You are dismissing the verse about Herod ordering the slaying of boys two years and under, because it counters your claims that the gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other.
your claim regarding Herod's order is based, not on its lack of historicity, but on the fact that the account refutes your take
No. I am only saying there is no corroborating evidence for it.
Luke speaks the events immediately after Jesus' birth, while Matthew tells of what happens two years later. Those gospels complement each other, with each giving unique details that the other doesn't. That is not contradictory.
Yes, that is your theory that you have stated several times :)
Last time I checked, Matthew was Jewish.
Umm, yes, but what does that have to do with anything? And you don't really believe that the Apostle Matthew sat down and wrote the Gospel According to Matthew, now do you????
-
Now finally getting back on topic, to the question of whether Baby Jesus did go to Egypt.
Once again, the theory you present is reasonable, but it is "reverse-engineered," in the sense that you (and others) read these accounts and filled in the gaps.
Now your theory is possible, or maybe the writers of these two books were reverse-engineering the story of Jesus's birth long after those events are supposed to have happened, and since they lived in the pre-Google era, couldn't check their facts together.
So your theory depends on the timing of the arrival of the wise men. Of course, we have no evidence that such men ever existed. And if they did, we have no way of verifying the timing of their visit (the Gospels don't say when they came, except at some point after the birth of Jesus).
The only thing being engineered here is your "theory" that Luke and Matthew were plotting and and "reverse-engineering". We have the approximate age of Jesus, based on the information in the Gospels. There's no need to "engineer" anything.
Luke 2:22 states that Jesus was brought to the temple when Mary's purification was complete. That process takes 40 days, making Jesus approximately 6 weeks old. Lev. 12 supports this.
Matt 2:17 states (once again) that Herod orders the slaying of boys 2 years and under, based on the info he got from the wise men and his priests. That would have to make Jesus around 2 years old, in that account.
Your theory is therefore reasonable, but neither verifiable nor falsifiable.
My claim, that the gospels can't get their stories right together, is based on just reading the texts without looking for excuses or gaps in the time-line: each gospel mentions an itinerary for travel after the birth of Jesus, they are contradictory.
The "itinerary" for the travel is based on two separate events that are TWO YEARS apart, as shown from the info in the Gospels themselves. Nowhere does it state in Matthew that the wise men find Jesus immediately after His birth. Getting the historical background behind Luke's account is hardly looking for excuses. What it shows is that the account DO NOT contradict each other.
Remember that you asked why Mary and Joseph made a "second trip to Bethlehem"; Luke gives the answer (Luke 2:41); They traveled to Jerusalem every year for Passover. And Bethlehem is only 5 miles away.
Either the gospels contradict each other, or as you speculate, there is a gap in the time-line.
Which is it? I'd go with the contradiction, because Matthew doesn't mention anything about a gap, but your theory is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, so you can believe it all you like :)
There's no speculation or excuses. We have the info right there on Jesus' age in BOTH Gospels. Matthew mentions that Herod calculated Jesus' age, based on what the Magi and the priests told him. There's no reason for him to even contemplate killing 2-year-old boys, unless Jesus was that age.
In short, did baby Jesus (as in a 6-7 week-old infant) go to Egypt? NO!!!
Did Jesus go to Egypt as a 2-year-old toddler? YES!!!
-
No. I am only saying there is no corroborating evidence for it.
That matters not, with regards to whether or not Matthew's account contradicts that of Luke.
Yes, that is your theory that you have stated several times :)
That's not my theory, because it's not a theory at all. The information is there, in both Gospels. And, it's supported by Leviticus.
Umm, yes, but what does that have to do with anything? And you don't really believe that the Apostle Matthew sat down and wrote the Gospel According to Matthew, now do you????
Not that it had anything to do with the topic and hand, but I (as many traditional Biblical scholars do) cite Matthew as the author of that particular Gospel.
-
So you DO believe that the Apostle Matthew sat down and wrote this book... I hate to break it to you, but NO!
And what does "Lev. 12" have to do with this?
-
So you DO believe that the Apostle Matthew sat down and wrote this book... I hate to break it to you, but NO!
And, your support for such a statement is.............
And what does "Lev. 12" have to do with this?
Had you read that chapter, particularly verses 1-6, your question would be answered.
But, in case you missed it, it corresponds with Luke 2:22. The purification process for a woman, after giving birth is at least 40 days (approx. 6 weeks). After which time, the mother and father are to go to the temple and do the burnt offering thing.
Lev. 12:6
And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
Luke 2:22, 23
And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord.
That's how we know Jesus' age in Luke's account. He was about six weeks old, when He was taken to the the temple. And after the temple stuff was done, they all went back to Nazareth.
Luke 2:39
And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.
That would be, as you would call it, the first "itinerary": Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Narazeth......all happening when Jesus was a newborn baby.
So, there's no contradiction with Luke and Matthew.
-
Whether the apostles really wrote the books attributed to them is a topic for another thread.
So baby Jesus didn't go to Egypt, but toddler Jesus may have. Good theory, McWay :)
Now there's another thread on here waiting for your contribution. "The authority of scripture, if only they could agree"
I'm excited about what you have to say there :)
-
Whether the apostles really wrote the books attributed to them is a topic for another thread.
So baby Jesus didn't go to Egypt, but toddler Jesus may have. Good theory, McWay :)
The Gospels record that this is what happened. Do you have information that states differently, a question asked of you multiple times?
-
I don't have information either way, and neither do you. For all we know, Matthew may have made up the whole "flight to Egypt" story. No other gospel mentions it.
-
I don't have information either way, and neither do you. For all we know, Matthew may have made up the whole "flight to Egypt" story. No other gospel mentions it.
::) give up.
-
Why is this even an issue?
Isn't the bible supposed to bed the word of God?
if why does he tell the story 4 different ways? Oh, yeah, they are separate accounts......but aren't they the word of god?
makes no sense, unless you want it to.
Face facts, the bible is about as black and white as a grey guitar.
And I'd have to side with c-82 on the outrageous crap about all babies 2 and under being murder and the dead rising from their graves and it not ever being mentioned any where.
Ah yes........what a book of stories.
-
Why is this even an issue?
Isn't the bible supposed to bed the word of God?
if why does he tell the story 4 different ways? Oh, yeah, they are separate accounts......but aren't they the word of god?
makes no sense, unless you want it to.
Face facts, the bible is about as black and white as a grey guitar.
And I'd have to side with c-82 on the outrageous crap about all babies 2 and under being murder and the dead rising from their graves and it not ever being mentioned any where.
Ah yes........what a book of stories.
Ah yes........The word of God.
You remind me of what judas iscariot would of been like. ozmo.
-
Ah yes........The word of God.
You remind me of what judas iscariot would of been like. ozmo.
oh brother, another self righteous holy than thou bible thumper who thinks likening me to Judas will distract from the facts.
Likening me to Judas only shows just how ignorant you are.
go read up on Judas and post again later when you have something other than a childish blurb to post.
-
About the slaughter of the children, until there is real historical evidence for it, it will remain just the figment of the evangelist's imagination. Since it did not occur in reality, it cannot be considered from a historical perspective as the self-interest-motivated actions of a jealous king. You presume that Herod thought that there was an infant out there that really presented a threat to his reign.
And yes, you did engineer your story. It is speculation. Matthew doesn't say they went back to Nazareth after Jesus was born. It doesn't mention a time lag. You speculate and present a reasonable, but not entirely convincing theory.
As for your accusations of "blubbering" and "whining," flattery will get you nowhere with me ;)
columbusdude82,
Stay on topic. Why do you change the subject when you run out of arguments? Read your own thread's title "Did Baby Jesus Go to Egypt???" MCWAY gave you an answer. You say the Gospels contradict each other in this one case, but MCWAY just showed you that they do not, but that they rather compliment each other.
If you want to discuss the historicity of these events, then start another thread.
-
I don't have information either way, and neither do you. For all we know, Matthew may have made up the whole "flight to Egypt" story. No other gospel mentions it.
Columbusdude, would another gospel mentioning it make a difference to you?
-
Stella, if another gospel mentions it, that would make it more likely that the story about a trip to Egypt was more widespread among the early Christians, and not just the figment of one evangelist's imagination.
loco, I like McWay's theory, but it involves superimposing verses on one another. Why didn't Matthew just tell it like it is? Why couldn't Matthew say "when Jesus was born, they went from Bethlehem to Jerusalem, then to Nazareth. Two years later, they were in Bethlehem en route to Jerusalem, and the wise men came..."
Surely, if the Holy Spirit were "guiding" the gospel writer, he could have filled him in on the details, instead of leaving it to posterity to put together a jigsaw puzzle.
-
I don't have information either way, and neither do you. For all we know, Matthew may have made up the whole "flight to Egypt" story. No other gospel mentions it.
That's your rationale for thinking that Matthew may have made up the flight to Egypt? What would be his motivation for doing such?
If you don't have the information, then you can't assume that Matthew fabricated Herod's decree and/or the flight to Egypt.
Stella, if another gospel mentions it, that would make it more likely that the story about a trip to Egypt was more widespread among the early Christians, and not just the figment of one evangelist's imagination.
loco, I like McWay's theory, but it involves superimposing verses on one another. Why didn't Matthew just tell it like it is? Why couldn't Matthew say "when Jesus was born, they went from Bethlehem to Jerusalem, then to Nazareth. Two years later, they were in Bethlehem en route to Jerusalem, and the wise men came..."
So, your complaint is that Matthew didn't give the account the way you wanted. That hardly qualifies as making the account (particularly the flight to Egypt, as the result of Herod's decree) a "figment of someone the writer's imagination". As long as the information is accurate, Matthew can give as much (or as little) detail, as he deems necessary to make his point.
Again, your claim was that Matthew and Luke contradict each other, because you assumed that the "itineraries" happened when Jesus was the same age. That is not the case, as has been shown.
Silence is NOT a contradiction. Luke is silent on the flight to Egypt; Matthew is silent on the trip to the temple. However, as it was Levitical law that a newborn baby be taken to the temple once the mother's purification is done (at least six weeks), one can easily assume in Jewish culture that such happened.
Plus, it appears that Luke mentions the trip is to emphasize that Jesus is the Messiah, based on the words of the high priest, Simeon.
Surely, if the Holy Spirit were "guiding" the gospel writer, he could have filled him in on the details, instead of leaving it to posterity to put together a jigsaw puzzle.
And this rule that mandates that the accounts of Luke and Matthew be identical would be.........
If another gospel mentioned Herod's edict, all Biblical skeptics would do is claim that the authors of the other Gospels copied it from one particular Gospel (as they already do, with the information that all four Gospels share, claiming that the others copied it from Mark).
The Gospels complement one another, with each one giving unique information that the others do not. That's to be expected from four different authors.I've yet to see, past or present, four people give the exact same details about a period of history or event.
-
oh brother, another self righteous holy than thou bible thumper who thinks likening me to Judas will distract from the facts.
Likening me to Judas only shows just how ignorant you are.
go read up on Judas and post again later when you have something other than a childish blurb to post.
you are a traitor.i have read enough of your posts to draw comparisions.Hey im a sinner i sin all the time .But im not a traitor.
And make your mind up fool.Dissing Gods Word when it suits you,yet telling me to go read it.Which side are you on?To whom do you belong?
-
you are a traitor.i have read enough of your posts to draw comparisions.Hey im a sinner i sin all the time .But im not a traitor.
And make your mind up fool.Dissing Gods Word when it suits you,yet telling me to go read it.Which side are you on?To whom do you belong?
w/e dude, point is if you are going to make a comparison at the very least know a little bit about what you are comparing someone too, otherwise as you have well demonstrated, you'll end up making a complete fool of yourself.
so once again, little man, go read about Judas so you can elaborate about a comparison without just making a hallow accusation.
I bet you don't even know what traitor means.
And further more, one THING is for sure, the BIBLE is NOT the 100% word of God, it is NOT a fact, and only assumed as such based on a person's BELIEF.
So if all you can do is sling crap and accusations with out the BALLS or intelligence to back them up....i suggest you STFU.
-
w/e dude, point is if you are going to make a comparison at the very least know a little bit about what you are comparing someone too, otherwise as you have well demonstrated, you'll end up making a complete fool of yourself.
so once again, little man, go read about Judas so you can elaborate about a comparison without just making a hallow accusation.
I bet you don't even know what traitor means.
And further more, one THING is for sure, the BIBLE is NOT the 100% word of God, it is NOT a fact, and only assumed as such based on a person's BELIEF.
So if all you can do is sling crap and accusations with out the BALLS or intelligence to back them up....i suggest you STFU.
That proves who you represent.Thanks for coming.
-
That proves who you represent.Thanks for coming.
Guess you got nothing? ::)
-
Guess you got nothing? ::)
Whats your gods name?
-
Whats your gods name?
Don't bother asking questions until you back up your accusation you sinner. ;D ;)
-
You are a sinner too.
Let me ask you again.
What is your gods name?
You know where im leading with this,hence your fear.