|
Post by rational on Jul 26, 2012 20:35:53 GMT -5
Again, you are reading in facts which aren't there. If one account said they went ONLY to Jerusalem, then you have something. You can speculate a contradiction if you like, but we are examining the facts here. That is just what the story describes. They went to Jerusalem and when they had finished their obligations there they went home. They went to Jerusalem 40 days after the birth. You are right. They could jave left home, returned to Jerusalem, found the wise men, listened to the warning, and fled to Egypt in the middle of the night and Luke didn't bother to mention it because Matthew had written such a stellar tale about it. I would but I try not to post things I do not believe. The text, as written, contains inconsistencies. You can add text to explain them in numerous ways (the family found a magic carpet and was transported, unseen, to Egypt)but the stories contain inconsistencies and discrepancies.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 26, 2012 20:49:30 GMT -5
The account says that Herod's counselors told him that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. But then it says that the wise men followed the star to where the child was (in the house). So if they followed the star, who can say for sure where it led them. Who's to say that after Jerusalem, they did not return to their home since they were only in Bethlehem for the census? It would have taken the wise men some time to come from "the east" - maybe more than 40 days. After going from Bethlehem to Jerusalem, it would only make sense they went back to their home.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2012 20:53:11 GMT -5
Again, you are reading in facts which aren't there. If one account said they went ONLY to Jerusalem, then you have something. You can speculate a contradiction if you like, but we are examining the facts here. That is just what the story describes. They went to Jerusalem and when they had finished their obligations there they went home. They went to Jerusalem 40 days after the birth. You are right. They could jave left home, returned to Jerusalem, found the wise men, listened to the warning, and fled to Egypt in the middle of the night and Luke didn't bother to mention it because Matthew had written such a stellar tale about it. Bingo. I think anyone reading the word "contradiction" would understand it to mean that there are opposing facts. Here are the #1 and #2 definitions of contradiction: 1. the act of going against; opposition; denial 2. a declaration of the opposite or contrary The prefix "contra" should be everyone's first clue as to what it is understood to mean. The original Latin roots mean " to speak against" To shift it over to "inconsistencies" can be correct or it can change the whole intent of the word "contradiction". Two stories which are not exhaustive will be inconsistent, but not in contradiction. The last word is now yours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2012 22:20:36 GMT -5
To shift it over to "inconsistencies" can be correct or it can change the whole intent of the word "contradiction". Two stories which are not exhaustive will be inconsistent, but not in contradiction. The last word is now yours. That's an insightful comment, as I run into that with spouse all the time. I'll try to relate something to him and he'll say "don't use so many words, just give me the facts." So, I do...but then when I later relate the full story to someone else (in all color graphics and four-part harmony), he'll say "that's not exactly what you told me" and gets upset. You make a good point that when you are trying to summarize a detailed story, the fuller version of it, or a version of some of the "left out parts" can sound odd. Well, if scholars have been arguing about such things since the gospels were written, I'm in good company~ None of this has anything to do with Rational's "last words," however.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 27, 2012 8:43:26 GMT -5
The account says that Herod's counselors told him that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. But then it says that the wise men followed the star to where the child was (in the house). So if they followed the star, who can say for sure where it led them. Who's to say that after Jerusalem, they did not return to their home since they were only in Bethlehem for the census? It would have taken the wise men some time to come from "the east" - maybe more than 40 days. After going from Bethlehem to Jerusalem, it would only make sense they went back to their home. Of course there can be any number of stories concocted to explain the contradictions/discrepancies presented. While Luke does present a pretty complete story of what the family did and where they went following the birth, as Clearday pointed out, there is nothing in the story that says they did not go to Disney after they completed their obligations in Jerusalem but before they returned to their home. It is not an exhaustive story with a recorded timeline.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 27, 2012 8:59:57 GMT -5
That's an insightful comment, as I run into that with spouse all the time. I'll try to relate something to him and he'll say "don't use so many words, just give me the facts." So, I do...but then when I later relate the full story to someone else (in all color graphics and four-part harmony), he'll say "that's not exactly what you told me" and gets upset. You make a good point that when you are trying to summarize a detailed story, the fuller version of it, or a version of some of the "left out parts" can sound odd. Well, if scholars have been arguing about such things since the gospels were written, I'm in good company~ None of this has anything to do with Rational's "last words," however. There is a simple physics experiment where you measure the speed of an object at the top of a stand, let it fall, measure it's speed when it passes a lower point, and derive an equation. With careful measurements the results describe the speed of the object at any point without having to measure every point. If you were to measure the speed in the middle of the fall and discover that the speed was 8 times the calculated speed there would be a contradiction even though you could offer a variety of explanations for the contradiction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2012 10:53:04 GMT -5
That's an insightful comment, as I run into that with spouse all the time. I'll try to relate something to him and he'll say "don't use so many words, just give me the facts." So, I do...but then when I later relate the full story to someone else (in all color graphics and four-part harmony), he'll say "that's not exactly what you told me" and gets upset. You make a good point that when you are trying to summarize a detailed story, the fuller version of it, or a version of some of the "left out parts" can sound odd. Well, if scholars have been arguing about such things since the gospels were written, I'm in good company~ None of this has anything to do with Rational's "last words," however. There is a simple physics experiment where you measure the speed of an object at the top of a stand, let it fall, measure it's speed when it passes a lower point, and derive an equation. With careful measurements the results describe the speed of the object at any point without having to measure every point. If you were to measure the speed in the middle of the fall and discover that the speed was 8 times the calculated speed there would be a contradiction even though you could offer a variety of explanations for the contradiction. Do you think if I use this explanation with spouse as to why the full version of my stories for which he only wanted the CliffsNotes version sound different, he'll get it? Because he usually never wants to hear "the middle" of the story....and that's always the best part.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jul 27, 2012 16:46:59 GMT -5
The gospels were written for four separate audiences. Why would anyone expect different groups of people to want the same details?
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jul 27, 2012 16:48:23 GMT -5
It's also possible that the members of the Sanhedrin knew of Christ, but couldn't identify Him from the rest of his followers. Not a case of cultural/ethnical blindness, but simply they didn't know what Christ looked like. He probably looked like every other caucasian in the area. So...Christ looked more like a Gentile than a Jew?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 27, 2012 18:45:27 GMT -5
He probably looked like every other caucasian in the area. So...Christ looked more like a Gentile than a Jew? Nope, he looked just like the Jews, Gentiles, and the rest of the caucasians who lived in the area.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 27, 2012 18:48:57 GMT -5
The gospels were written for four separate audiences. Why would anyone expect different groups of people to want the same details? Generally they would all want factual information. And what would the point be to have 4 different, and sometimes conflicting, stories?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 27, 2012 20:02:21 GMT -5
The gospels were written for four separate audiences. Why would anyone expect different groups of people to want the same details? Why would different groups want a different set of facts or truth ? Wouldn't they want something that was truth if they were going to give their lives to it? What a lot of people today don't realize is that in that day stories WASN'T historical correct or even meant to be. That is, history as a discipline of stating facts in an objective manner. Josephus, a 1st century Roman Jew was the 1st historian to mention Jesus in what one could treat as "history" in that fashion.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jul 28, 2012 2:37:57 GMT -5
So...Christ looked more like a Gentile than a Jew? Nope, he looked just like the Jews, Gentiles, and the rest of the caucasians who lived in the area. Technically, you're right. "Caucasian" has been the official ethnicity of the Middle East. However, since we're now separating Asian ethnicity from Pacific Island ethnicity, it'll be really, really nice to have a Middle East ethnicity. Same with separating Central Asian ethnicity from Eastern Asian ethnicity.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jul 28, 2012 2:45:58 GMT -5
The gospels were written for four separate audiences. Why would anyone expect different groups of people to want the same details? Why would different groups want a different set of facts or truth ? Wouldn't they want something that was truth if they were going to give their lives to it? The Gospel of Matthew was written to show the relevance of Christ to the Jews. That's why there's a strong emphasis on Christ's lineage, like a continuation of the Old Testament. The Gospel of Luke was written for the Gentiles. Luke himself was the only Gentile apostle in the Bible, so he knew that Gentiles needed a far broader approach to Christ than what a Jew would need. The Gospel of Mark was written for Christians. They would already have known that Christ was God, so little emphasis on deity. However, there is a strong focus on Christ's ministry and works. The Gospel of John is the opposite of the Gospel of Mark. Again, while written to the whole world, it focuses specifically on why Christ is God. It's different strokes for different folks. Sometimes, we all need to approach Christ in different ways, just don't need the same information all the time.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2012 6:29:20 GMT -5
Technically, you're right. "Caucasian" has been the official ethnicity of the Middle East. Actually caucasian is not a designation of ethnicity but of race. These people are all considered asian. Not many people use racial classifications any more.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2012 6:34:27 GMT -5
The Gospel of Matthew was written to show the relevance of Christ to the Jews. That's why there's a strong emphasis on Christ's lineage, like a continuation of the Old Testament. There are slim connections. Was Luke a Gentile?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2012 7:00:56 GMT -5
Why would different groups want a different set of facts or truth ? Wouldn't they want something that was truth if they were going to give their lives to it? The Gospel of Matthew was written to show the relevance of Christ to the Jews. That's why there's a strong emphasis on Christ's lineage, like a continuation of the Old Testament. The Gospel of Luke was written for the Gentiles. Luke himself was the only Gentile apostle in the Bible, so he knew that Gentiles needed a far broader approach to Christ than what a Jew would need. The Gospel of Mark was written for Christians. They would already have known that Christ was God, so little emphasis on deity. However, there is a strong focus on Christ's ministry and works. The Gospel of John is the opposite of the Gospel of Mark. Again, while written to the whole world, it focuses specifically on why Christ is God. It's different strokes for different folks. Sometimes, we all need to approach Christ in different ways, just don't need the same information all the time. Here is another viewpoint: Mark was the first account, largely written from Peter's memories and stories. Matthew and Luke had access to Mark's account and wrote their stories using Mark, then adding their own information. John was written last and was not intended to be synoptic but to promote the development and expansion of theology of the church group many decades after Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Jul 28, 2012 7:04:32 GMT -5
The Gospel of Matthew was written to show the relevance of Christ to the Jews. That's why there's a strong emphasis on Christ's lineage, like a continuation of the Old Testament. There are slim connections. Was Luke a Gentile?Rat I think some say Luke was more likely a slave because he was called a physician. They were allowed to touch the unclean so tradition has it it was common for non Jews of the household to take care of the sick ken
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2012 7:14:17 GMT -5
Rat I think some say Luke was more likely a slave because he was called a physician. They were allowed to touch the unclean so tradition has it it was common for non Jews of the household to take care of the sick ken Luke is the most organized and literate of all the gospel writers. Does that fit in with the slave theory?
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jul 28, 2012 8:19:34 GMT -5
Luke stated the reason for his being well organized. He used the words"having a perfect understanding of all things from the very first to write unto thee in order" None of the gospels ,as far as I understand were contemporary.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Jul 28, 2012 9:07:19 GMT -5
Rat I think some say Luke was more likely a slave because he was called a physician. They were allowed to touch the unclean so tradition has it it was common for non Jews of the household to take care of the sick ken Luke is the most organized and literate of all the gospel writers. Does that fit in with the slave theory? CD Are you implying slaves are ignorant? I know the thought I expressed is somewhat disconcerting for many. Sometimes the things God wants us to understand do not come in the same package each time. Paul called himself a slave, then there was Onesimus. Easy for us to have a preconcieved idea of the servents or saints . Personally I am glad that God does not. ken
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2012 9:45:44 GMT -5
Rat I think some say Luke was more likely a slave because he was called a physician. They were allowed to touch the unclean so tradition has it it was common for non Jews of the household to take care of the sick ken Luke is the most organized and literate of all the gospel writers. Does that fit in with the slave theory? It could, I suppose. I don't know about the Jews, but I've read that the upper class Romans of the time had literate, educated slaves that were tutors and guardians for their children until they were of age.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 28, 2012 10:08:19 GMT -5
The account says that Herod's counselors told him that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. But then it says that the wise men followed the star to where the child was (in the house). So if they followed the star, who can say for sure where it led them. Who's to say that after Jerusalem, they did not return to their home since they were only in Bethlehem for the census? It would have taken the wise men some time to come from "the east" - maybe more than 40 days. After going from Bethlehem to Jerusalem, it would only make sense they went back to their home. A minister preached on the movements of Joseph, Mary and the baby Jesus.....Since Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Joseph and Mary stayed in Bethlehem and Jesus was circumcized on the 8th day as is required, and when Mary was over the childbirth cleansing, they went to the Temple in Jerusalem to offer the firstborn Son's sacrifice. Then they supposedly returned to Bethlehem and were there for a while, probably until Jesus was 2 or 2 and a half yrs. old...this reasoned due to the age of the children that were hunted by Herod in their murdering....and before the murders came about, Joseph was warned in a dream to take Mary and the "child" to Egypt not Gallilee.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 28, 2012 10:15:16 GMT -5
Rat I think some say Luke was more likely a slave because he was called a physician. They were allowed to touch the unclean so tradition has it it was common for non Jews of the household to take care of the sick ken Luke is the most organized and literate of all the gospel writers. Does that fit in with the slave theory? --We are saved by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). --Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17). --The Book of Luke and the Acts are the word of God and present the Gospel (2 Timothy 3:16). --Luke and Acts are included as "the oracles of God" (Romans 3:1-2). --Salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22). That means that Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles was a JEW. Only Jewish Books CAN Be Inspired and Infallible This Jewish requirement of all authors of Scripture is one reason why we know to reject the Koran, Book of Mormon, writings of Ellen G. White, etc. God doesn't deliver His words (oracles) through Gentiles. kjvbiblebelievers.com/lukenotajew.php
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 28, 2012 11:45:19 GMT -5
--We are saved by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). --Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17). --The Book of Luke and the Acts are the word of God and present the Gospel (2 Timothy 3:16). --Luke and Acts are included as "the oracles of God" (Romans 3:1-2). --Salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22). That means that Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles was a JEW. Only Jewish Books CAN Be Inspired and Infallible This Jewish requirement of all authors of Scripture is one reason why we know to reject the Koran, Book of Mormon, writings of Ellen G. White, etc. God doesn't deliver His words (oracles) through Gentiles. kjvbiblebelievers.com/lukenotajew.phpIn Colossians 4 Tychicus, Aristarches, Marcus, Onesimus, and Justus are called "of the circumcision." Luke is mentioned in the chapter, but not in that list. (read this in Unger's Bible dictionary) I have never heard that only Jewish writings can be inspired!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2012 14:11:04 GMT -5
Rat I think some say Luke was more likely a slave because he was called a physician. They were allowed to touch the unclean so tradition has it it was common for non Jews of the household to take care of the sick ken This was addressed in he piece I posted. Do you not agree with it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2012 18:32:01 GMT -5
Luke is the most organized and literate of all the gospel writers. Does that fit in with the slave theory? CD Are you implying slaves are ignorant? I know the thought I expressed is somewhat disconcerting for many. Sometimes the things God wants us to understand do not come in the same package each time. Paul called himself a slave, then there was Onesimus. Easy for us to have a preconcieved idea of the servents or saints . Personally I am glad that God does not. ken Yes. Literacy ignorance was widespread in those days. It only stands to reason that most slaves were illiterate. As hberry suggests, it is possible that a few slaves were specifically trained in literacy for certain functions. However, the vast majority of slaves were almost certainly illiterate. The gospel of Luke as it is written does not look like the account of a typical slave, nor does it portray the perspective of a slave. As for Paul, I suspect you know that Paul was using that term figuratively. Paul was not, nor ever was, a typical under bondage to a master.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 28, 2012 19:01:37 GMT -5
Why would different groups want a different set of facts or truth ? Wouldn't they want something that was truth if they were going to give their lives to it? The Gospel of Matthew was written to show the relevance of Christ to the Jews. That's why there's a strong emphasis on Christ's lineage, like a continuation of the Old Testament. The Gospel of Luke was written for the Gentiles. Luke himself was the only Gentile apostle in the Bible, so he knew that Gentiles needed a far broader approach to Christ than what a Jew would need. The Gospel of Mark was written for Christians. They would already have known that Christ was God, so little emphasis on deity. However, there is a strong focus on Christ's ministry and works. The Gospel of John is the opposite of the Gospel of Mark. Again, while written to the whole world, it focuses specifically on why Christ is God. It's different strokes for different folks. Sometimes, we all need to approach Christ in different ways, just don't need the same information all the time. excuse me, quizzer, but that sounds like a crock...,
Where areyour sources for this interp?
|
|