Freethought & Rationalism Archive

kcdad · 05-05-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthijs

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Because they can't agree on anything except what they copied from Mark.

Apart from when they do agree, of course.

Elske.

At what point (apart from what they took from Mark) do they agree? Some of the sayings? They took them from Thomas. What stories appear in both Matthew and Luke (but not Mark)?

Genealogies? Nope.
The Annunciation? Nope.
Where they lived before Jesus was born? Nope.
Birth story? Nope.
Where they go and why they go there after Jesus was born? Nope.
The Baptism... from Mark.
First miracle?
Last Miracle?
Sermon on the mount or Sermon in the valley?
Last words on the cross?
At the tomb on Sunday morning?

Where do they agree... how about the names of the 12 disciples... NOPE! They can't even agree on that.

matthijs · 05-05-2009, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Where do they agree...

http://www.textexcavation.com/agreements.html

Don't let those trifling details bother you, though. As the number of flaming hoops increases, it becomes ever less worth jumping through them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

how about the names of the 12 disciples... NOPE! They can't even agree on that.

Perhaps Luke didn't like the way Matthew told certain parts of the story. Ever consider that?

Elske.

Kasper · 05-05-2009, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Whichever way you go, you have to make certain assumptions. Those assumptions are not specifically spelled out in the Biblical documents. So, one can go in two directions, at least, and either one can be the right direction and either one can be the wrong direction.

It's hardly an assumption to conclude that Luke refers to the rituals he already mentioned, because he, well... Mentioned them... You, however, are adding stuff to the story, the crititcs of the verses are not. Occam's Razor. Unless you can provide some evidence that shows us that Luke also referred to the gospel of Matthew, I see no reason to assume he did.

Net2004 · 05-05-2009, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Luke then picks up his account when Joseph and Mary return to Nazareth. Jesus would have been 3-4 years old at this time. They then went to Jerusalem each year.

"First, the language of Luke 2:41 certainly indicates that Mary and Joseph went to JerusalemEVERY YEAR because the Greek has KAT' ETOS, which means annually or every year. This is a well-attested expression, on which you can see other examples in Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon (1957 edition), p. 317. Luke 2:41 indicates that they made this annual trip from the birth onward, and so that would have included the entire reign of Archelaus. "

luke had no problem in telling his readers about how much time had passed :

After some days Paul said to Barnabas...
"And after these days Elisabeth his wife conceived.
"Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was
sent from God to a city in Galilee"
"And when eight days were
fulfilled for circumcising, him, his name was called Jesus
"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign
of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea...
And it came to pass about
eight days after these sayings, that he [Jesus] took with him...

why luke did not tell his readers that after a few years, jesus's parents went to jerusalem every year?

Amaleq13 · 05-05-2009, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK, that's a good point. You write, "To my knowledge, every other example in the Bible refers specifically to what is written in the Torah." So, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

I ran a search for that phrase and looked at the context. It appears to always refer to the Torah.

Quote:

The Bible never really tells us that the Law of the Lord is synonymous with the Torah.

It consistently uses it as such and never, to my knowledge, uses it to refer to a unique command God had given to a specific individual or individuals.

Quote:

The question, then, is what Luke had in mind when he used the phrase "they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord"?

Given the context provided by the preceding passages in which the family is fulfilling the obligations of the law, that seems rather obvious.

Quote:

Did he have in mind just the laws found in the Torah as they relate to the new baby and purification of the mother or did he also mean to include those specific commands given to Joseph by God as recorded by Matthew.

There isn't the slightest hint that he knew those commands existed, let alone that he intended them to be read into the words he chose to express himself.

You argument appears to have no basis in the evidence.

show_no_mercy · 05-05-2009, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

...
Luke (well, Acts of the Apostles):

In Matthew, Judas returns the money he got for his betrayal and then goes off and hangs himself. In Luke (Acts), Judas buys a field with the money he got for his betrayal and then falls on rocks and seemingly explodes.

They are unaware of each others writings.

In Acts 1, the context is that of Peter talking to those assembled in the room and Peter appears to use metaphorical language to describe what Judas had done and what had happened to him. We might conclude that Peter did not know the full story of what had happened to Judas at that point in time as no one had yet sat down to write an account of the life of Jesus and would not do so for many years. This does not show that Luke who writes many years later and would have had access to Matthew's account (even if we don't know that he did) could not have been aware of Matthew's account. The reference to Peter's sermon adds nothing to the issue before us and in no way proves, supports, or implies your point.

Why are you assuming it's part of Peter's sermon?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acts 1

15In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry."
18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,'[d] and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.'[e] 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

Luke is letting the reader know why Peter is making this speech so he has that slight digression explaining it. Why would Peter say "everyone in Jerusalem heard about this"?

kcdad · 05-05-2009, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthijs

Perhaps Luke didn't like the way Matthew told certain parts of the story. Ever consider that?

Elske.

Yes, God inspired them differently.

matthijs · 05-05-2009, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Yes, God inspired them differently.

:Cheeky:

Elske.

Doug Shaver · 05-06-2009, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TehMuffin

Unless you can provide some evidence that shows us that Luke also referred to the gospel of Matthew, I see no reason to assume he did.

You see no reason to assume that because you don't presuppose the gospels to be inerrant. If you presuppose inerrancy, then you must assume anything it takes to make the discrepancies go away. After all, if they are inerrant, then there cannot be any discrepancies. QED.

rhutchin · 05-06-2009, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

In Acts 1, the context is that of Peter talking to those assembled in the room and Peter appears to use metaphorical language to describe what Judas had done and what had happened to him. We might conclude that Peter did not know the full story of what had happened to Judas at that point in time as no one had yet sat down to write an account of the life of Jesus and would not do so for many years. This does not show that Luke who writes many years later and would have had access to Matthew's account (even if we don't know that he did) could not have been aware of Matthew's account. The reference to Peter's sermon adds nothing to the issue before us and in no way proves, supports, or implies your point.

Why are you assuming it's part of Peter's sermon?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acts 1

15In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry."
18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,'[d] and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.'[e] 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

Luke is letting the reader know why Peter is making this speech so he has that slight digression explaining it. Why would Peter say "everyone in Jerusalem heard about this"?

I agree that Peter may not not have said, "everyone in Jerusalem heard about this." He could have said it as he was talking to close friends and the extra detail would have enforced the point he was making about Judas. However, v19 could be a digression by Luke to tell the reader that the things which Peter said were known to many people.

The real issue here is whether v18 was part of Peter's sermon or part of Luke's digression. I go with it being part of Peter's sermon. It fits within the flow of v17 and v20. It emphasizes why Peter then tells the people that Scripture foretold that his "habitation would be desolate" [KJV].

How do you conclude that anything other than v19 is to be read as a digression by Luke?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.