Dargo

Are you admitting that Mathew used Hos 11:1 out of context since it's obvious the rest of the chapter had absolutely nothing to do with Jesus, and it requires a huge stretch to see even the first verse as a Messianic prophecy. The extreme out-of-context use of this and other Old Testament verses by the Gospel authors to “prove” Jesus was the Messiah was one of the major factors which led to my deconversion. I would have thought that an all-knowing, all-powerful god could have created unambiguous prophecies in the first place instead of having to reuse verses that do not appear to have ever been intended as prophecies. I'm afraid it looks to my skeptical eyes that Mathew was simply twisting Old Testament verses in a desperate attempt to prove it foretold the life of Jesus.

Amlodhi

No he didn't. The trip to Jerusalem is tied to Mary's purification; not Jesus' circumcision.

If Luke's intention had been to skip a couple years of relevant material, he wouldn't have placed these two events in conjunctive juxtaposition in a single sentence.

Luke 2:22 ". . when the days of (Mary's) purification were accomplished, they brought Jesus to Jerusalem."

"When" as used in this sentence is a conjunction which connects the two phrases, i.e.:

They brought Jesus to Jerusalem, when? . . . when Mary's purification period was accomplished.

If language, grammar and syntax are to have any ability to convey meaning whatsoever, this is the only proper way to read this sentence.

Think about it spurly, you've just taken your boss and several co-workers out to dinner at an expensive restaurant. During the meal you realize that you have left your wallet at home and have no means of paying the check. You call your wife and she says to you, "When I finish getting dressed I will bring your wallet to the restaurant".

But your wife never shows up, you can't pay the check and, further, you don't see your wife again for two years.

When your wife finally returns home you ask her where she has been and why she didn't bring your wallet to the restaurant two years ago like she said she would. She replies, "Oh, I finished getting dressed, then went to Rome for two years and was just getting ready to bring you your wallet now".

You reply, "But you said that you would bring my wallet when you finished dressing".

She replies, "Well, I did finish dressing didn't I? I just left out the part about going to Rome for two years between getting dressed and bringing your wallet."

Makes no sense? Neither does the way you want to read Luke 2:22.


The dichotomy between Matthew and Luke is not merely a matter of omission of various "details" as you propose. Aside from the actual birth taking place in Bethlehem, there are no overlapping features at all between these two accounts.

Again, Matthew makes it clear that he is recording a different tradition than Luke when in Matt. 2:23 he says:

"And he (Joseph) came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth . . ."

This would be an extremely unusual way to describe someone returning to their hometown.
No we don't. In fact, there is absolutely nothing beyond the presupposition of harmony that would even suggest such a methodology.

In this case, trying to conjoin these two traditions does nothing more than make a complete mockery of these authors' ability to convey any coherent meaning in their use of language and syntax.

Namaste'

Amlodhi