Mortal Man Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 Luke chapter 2 is green. Matthew chapter 2 is red.1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from C
Vance Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 You mean the Bible isn't the "inerrant" "God breathed" Word of God?Tell me it isn't so!
Mortal Man Posted December 7, 2010 Author Posted December 7, 2010 You mean the Bible isn't the "inerrant" "God breathed" Word of God?Tell me it isn't so!I'm afraid it's not, but don't tell Rob Bowman.
elguanteloko Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 Just don't go after Santa and we'll be in peace, all right?
Duncan Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 Mortal Man, I am wondering if you have ever read Raymond E. Brown's book, "the Birth of the Messiah"? It lists 11 similarities between the accounts in Matthew and Luke and deals with what you are reffering too-I think, it has been awhile since I read it! haha!
Robert F. Smith Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 Caesar Augustus appointed Cyrenius governor of Syria in AD 6, with instructions to
Ceeboo Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 Another anti thread that twists information out of context and is filled with dark lies!This has NO baring on my salvation!Line upon line!I KNOW the christmas story is true!I offer you my testimony of the truth in these things!And, in case you didn't know, the christmas story is NOT doctrine!BTW: Merry Christmas to all Peace,Ceeboo
Jason Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 Just add "current scholars believe" to any claim of dates, and remember that not having records of contemporary events or people surviving today doesn't mean that there were no contemporary events or people at the time.
thesometimesaint Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 Ceeboo:There is no question that there are differences in the Nativity stories as told in the Bible. That doesn't make the overall story any less true.Actually the Nativity story is indispensable to my(your) salvation.I don't know about you, but I sure don't know everything. I sure learn line upon line. As do I. As do I. That God(the Son) chose to be born into mortality is doctrine.Merry Christmas Ceeboo, and may Santa be good to you.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 Luke and Matthew each struggled with the problem as to how to get Jesus born in Bethlehem in order to fulfill Micah 5:2. They sought to overcome the Pharisees
Mortal Man Posted December 7, 2010 Author Posted December 7, 2010 Bah, humbug, Dude!Merry Christmas David!
Mortal Man Posted December 7, 2010 Author Posted December 7, 2010 Just don't go after Santa and we'll be in peace, all right?Let the record show that I have vigorously defended Santa against the anti-Santa "rationalists" at FAIR and FARMS.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 Footnote 4. In producing his gospel, Matthew relied on the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. This is known from his misquotes of Hebrew Isaiah et al., based on LXX mistranslations, and from his use of the Septuagint
semlogo Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 Very interesting analysis, thanks. As I was reading the passages I realized they hold the most sentimental value for me of any other scriptures. Ah, Christmas.
WalkerW Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 The LXX translation was made from a Hebrew recension which was superior to the much later Massoretic Text, and the LXX frequently has readings which are far superior to the MT.Yet, you appear to want to have your cake and eat it too in conveniently claiming that LXX Greek parthenos
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 Merry Christmas David!IF you will only redistribute all of your wealth to the poor I am sure David will forgive you.
Mortal Man Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 Mortal Man, I am wondering if you have ever read Raymond E. Brown's book, "the Birth of the Messiah"? It lists 11 similarities between the accounts in Matthew and Luke and deals with what you are reffering too-I think, it has been awhile since I read it! haha!I'd expect a dozen or so similarities between independent accounts of the same event.
Mortal Man Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 Another anti thread that twists information out of context and is filled with dark lies!This has NO baring on my salvation!Line upon line!I KNOW the christmas story is true!I offer you my testimony of the truth in these things!And, in case you didn't know, the christmas story is NOT doctrine!Merry Christmas Ceeboo! I see you are getting into the apologetic spirit.
Mortal Man Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 Just add "current scholars believe" to any claim of dates, and remember that not having records of contemporary events or people surviving today doesn't mean that there were no contemporary events or people at the time.I am certain that there were contemporary events and people at the time of Jesus' birth.
Mortal Man Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 What is extraordinary about the Book of Mormon is that it doesn
Mortal Man Posted December 8, 2010 Author Posted December 8, 2010 IF you will only redistribute all of your wealth to the poor I am sure David will forgive you.I'm more of a believer in the Parable of the Talents and the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 You mean the Bible isn't the "inerrant" "God breathed" Word of God?Tell me it isn't so!All is lost...wait we have the BoM.
Whiskeypete Posted December 8, 2010 Posted December 8, 2010 If I had to pick one of the two accounts, I'd probably go with Luke.The Matthew version has too many parts that are inconsistant with known history. Example: If there really were a slaughter of all male infants under the age of two, you would think that somebody other than Matthew would have noticed. (ie, Josephus, etc, not to mention Mark, Luke and John). I think the author of Matthew was trying very hard to have the coming of Christ in the meridian of time fit every Messianic prophecy as they were understood in his day. I have pointed out in previous years that EVERY ATTEMPT I have ever seen to date the Nativity always uses the death of Herod as the key limiting factor. But if the Matthew version is incorrect (sorry sola-scripturites), and we look at Luke only, I wonder whether we would still be looking at a 4 BC date for the Nativity.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.