The entire story of Jesus from Birth on. Matthew and Luke can't seem to agree on anything of importance....both have different genealogies of Jesus....and both have different accounts of the virgin birth.
Matthew and Luke can't seem to agree on anything of importance? Do you think you are perhaps stretching the truth a bit?
The four gospels were written about similar events from different perspectives and for four separate specific purposes. John states that he recorded his events so that people could see that He was the son of God. Luke wrote in a strictly sequential manner so that Theophilus could know the certainty of specific thing that he had been told. Some of the gospels were written to a Roman audience. Others to Jewish audiences. Each gospel was written from the specific perspective of one deisciple.
It makes sense that each author would write about the same events, for different purposes, highlighting some events and leaving others out, without being contradictory. For instance, I could tell a group that I am from Pheonix, lived in Savannah, and currently live in Germany. One person could then say that I live in Germany. Another can say I lived in Savannah. Another could say that I am from Pheonix. None would be contradictory.
I could relate my life story. One may begin telling it from the time I lived in Savannah. Another may begin yesterday. Another may begin from Pheonix. None would be wrong.
For that matter, I could say that my step-father's father was a Jew. My mother's father was a native american. My father's father was Irish. One could then say that my grandfather was a Jew. My grandfather was Native American. My grandfather was Irish.
None would be contradictory in the least. I would have three different genealogies that differ but do not contradict.
Something must be both true and untrue at the same time
and in the same context to be a contradiction. For instance:
It was snowing at 3:00 today would not be a contradiction. It was snowing at 3:00 today in Nashville, but not at 3:00 today in Knoxville-- would not be a contradiction.
It was snowing today in Chattanooga at 3:00, but not at 3:30-- would not be a contradiction. But, it was snowing and not snowing today in Chattanooga, at 3:00-- would most likely be a contradiction.
Mathew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem, moving to Nazareth only after the Birth of Jesus while they fled from Herod (who, btw, died in 4 BC)... Luke says Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus, but solves the problem by saying they traveled to Bethlehem for the Augustus census because Joseph was from the house of David and was required to return to the city of his ancestor. there is no mention of this by any Roman historian..and the census mentioned by Josephus was only a local census by Quirinius (who wasn't even a governor during Herod's reign) didn't happen until 6 AD.
OK... I'll try to wade through the elephants one at a time...
So, one author gave more information than another, that does not in any way contradict the other's information, and you feel it's a contradiction? I find that odd.
I know of few people that claim that Jesus was actually born in the year 0. The segmentation of time between BC and AD was made much later than the gospels, so how could the gospels be wrong about it?
Because we have not found any official documents about one specific event, it didn't happen? That's an odd way to think of historicity. If, 2000 years from now, no one finds my birth certificate, does that mean that you and I are not corresponding? I mean, obviously I was never born.
In the Gospel of John it is inferred that Jesus was never born in Bethlehem to begin with (John 7:40-42).
Do you not get the irony that John is showing here? Some in the crowd said, "It's the Messiah!" Others said, "It can't be! He's from Galilee. The Messiah must come from Bethlehem." We know from other testimony that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem to fulfill this very prophecy.
I'm not sure how you can logically assert that the wrongness of a crowd's testimony creates a contradiction in the Bible. I mean, the Bible never said they were right. Instead, the Bible included the their wrongness as an ironical aside.
OT prophecy heavily inferred that Israel would get a Messiah and miss him. (Actually it predicted two different facets of the Messiah's ministry, and inferred that they would not recognize Him and accept Him the first time.) This section showed that actually happening.
The Gospel of Mark makes no mention of it anywhere, seemingly unaware that the whole garbled mess even took place.
Because I don't mention something, I am unaware of it? Until this time in the conversation, I have never once mentioned that Napolian lost at Waterloo. Does that mean I have been unaware of it?
No. It means it has not been relevant to any point that I have tried to make, nor been demanded for the purpose of my posts.
Are we operating on the same definition of "contradiction"?
Jesus never mentions that his mother was a virgin, and Mary doesn't seem to have any recollection of Gabriel or associated angels telling her she is the mother of God. According to Matthew (13:55-57) Jesus had four brothers making the whole virgin claim spurious at best, and the translation of the Hebrew "almah" (youn woman) to Greek "parthenos" (virgin) may have even been wrong to begin with.
First, to be more specific... The gospels never record that Jesus specifically mentions anything about His virgin birth. There is a decided difference.
Secondly...
I have never mentioned anything about my mother to you. Does that mean she doesn't exist? The amount that I reveal specifically about my mother to anyone is constrained by at least two different things:
- How much I feel you need to know about her.
- How much I feel that you already know about her, thus how much revealed information would be repetitive.
(Mentioning or recording something does not mean that it didn't happen, nor that I have no knowledge/recollection of it. This is valid for both Jesus and Mary. Jesus and Mary could have mentioned it and not had it recorded. They could have not mentioned it and yet known it. The fact that it is given in the gospels indicate that one or both mentioned it. Probably Mary, as she was the one that it happened to.)
Thirdly, your claim that Jesus never referred to His virgin birth is absolutely spurious. From the age of 12, He referred to God as His father, and repeated the claim through His adult years up until His death. It is obvious that this was a claim to sonship in a special and particular way, because when He made it, people tried to kill Him. When He made it, they all tore their robes and screamed, "He just claimed to be God!"
You can't see that this was a particular claim to divine sonship?
Fourthly, there is Biblical testimony that indicates that the Pharisees knew all about the virgin birth claims and attributed it to an infidelity on Mary's part instead. They all but call Him a bastard in John 8. Note that this was in response to His claim of God as His Father, and He responded to the accustaion by claiming God as His father.
In John 8:3-11 we have the story of the women taken in adultry that makes absolutely no sense at all. If only non-sinners have the right to punish, then how could anybody decide to punish offenders? Seems pretty hypocritical. Also, one would think some wife or husband in the town would have felt cheated, did Jesus consult with them before he "forgave" the adultress? And if after the whole episode when the crowd has left and it is just Jesus and the woman, then who is the author and knows what was really said to begin with?
etc...etc...I can go on....but you get the point.
It appears that a better translation of that, from the original languages, would be, "Anyone without
this sin, cast the first stone."
Before He said it, He started writing in the dirt. After He said it, He started writing in the dirt again. Scripture says that,
one by one, they dropped their stones and left. I wonder what He was writing in the dirt that made the accusers, one by one, leave as He wrote in the dirt, after telling them that "he without
this sin, kill her..."
Personally, I believe it was names, places, times... As each accuser's name appeared in the list, they dropped their stones and kicked rocks instead of throwing them.
Now... What was going on here? John says that they were trying to trap him so that they could accuse Him. That's the whole reason they set this scene up--
not to seek justice-- but to trap Him and accuse Him.
How were they trapping him? Because Israel, under Roman rule, did not have the right to either command or carry out a death penalty. So, according to John, while Jesus was teaching very publicly at the temple complex, they brought the woman before Him and told him to make a decision-- between the law of Moses and the law of Rome.
If He sided with the law of Moses, then they could go to Roman officials and have Him killed for insurrection. If He sided with Roman law, He would be discredited to Israel. Jesus refused to be manipulated. He upheld the law of Moses without an insurrection against Rome.
The law of Moses stated that the death penalty could only be implemented on the testimony of multiple witnesses. Jesus was in effect asking, who witnessed this? He was also asking, "Where's the guy? It takes two to tango." So, Jesus was not cheating the law. He was upholding it while also holding all parties involved responsible.
Lastly, Jesus perfectly upheld the pattern that He showed throughout His entire ministry. He offered grace to the humble and the law to the upright, without minimizing sin.
The rich young ruler viewed Himself as spiritually upright and proclaimed that he could be found acceptable through the law, so Jesus showed him where he was failing the law. The woman at the well, Jesus showed her her sin and offered her grace when she recognized it. This woman in adultery sat humbled and condemned, thus Jesus offered grace while telling her to go and sin no more.
Jesus knew that grace has no teeth until a person recognizes their need for it. (A brief aside... That's why most Christians are not hesitant to call sin, sin-- because we believe that only in the face of known sin will anyone accept the grace that is available and free to all.)
The text says in verse 9 that "only he was left with the woman in the center..." It does not say that no one was left within earshot. Just that they of the crowd in that spot were left in that spot. Besides, even if they were left alone, the disciples could have asked him, "master, what happened?!"
So, was it hypocritical? Did it "make no sense at all" because you really didn't understand it, or because it didn't happen?
What would be more reasonable...the dating of all similarities to the works/life of Jesus are wrong, and all similarities really aren't what they seem...
....or...
They were inserted after the fact, intertwined with semi-historical accounts of Jesus to appeal to the masses who were already familiar with said myths to begin with?
I think it's reasonable to search out the pros and cons on the matter. I think it is incredibly unreasonable to prop that line of evidence up as disproving the gospel accounts. With the wide and varied sources debunking the evidence supported, I went out and did a spot check of just one of your claims. It turns out that random check supported the assertions of the expertise that decried the theory as debunked. I'm not sure what else you want from me.
:hi:
