Kasper

Here's what Luke says:

Luke 2:39 (King James Version)
Here's what Matthew says:

Matthew 2:13 (King James Version)
You can read both gospels to check that the quotes are not taken out of context.

Look at the quote from Luke. Some Christians have defended it with something like: "Luke just didn't mention that they went to Egypt, so it is not a contradiction."

But that's not really true, is it? It clearly says: "returned into Galilee". Which part of "return into" opens up the possibility that they could have gone somewhere else?

aa5874

The birth narratives of gMatthew and gLuke are fundamentally different.

The birth narrative in gMatthew appears to be secretive and surrounded by fear of Herod, whereas in gLuke even the shepherds went to tell others of the birth of Jesus.

There seems to be no need for Luke's baby Jesus to have been hidden from anyone.

Luke 2.15-18

IamJoseph

I beieve that Islam says Jesus did not die on a cross but lived to a ripe old age, had a family, and is seen as a revered figure and totally human. Islam emerged many centuries after Christianity, and had no writings at this time - so it is talking from percieved belief or memory recall - the later seeming implausable.

Since both the christian and islamic view are in abject contradiction of each other, neither can be taken seriously as historical, but can only be seen as a belief premise.

The most pivotal historical factor is omitted here - which occured in the midst of both these religions and peoples: Rome's greatest war with the Jews in 70 CE, which cost over a million lives, the destruction of what was the world's largest monument [The Temple fortress], and Jerusalem. Is it not diabolical that such a pivotal event is not recorded in these two religions - which begs the question, what credence in their religious archives? :constern01:

Kasper

I agree, but if one wants to point out contradictions concerning Jesus, it's pretty irrelevant to bring up the Quran in a discussion with Christians, and visa versa, since both would immediately say the other book is false.

IamJoseph

This makes the plight of the Jews embedded in their midst - exactly how it has been and is today. They become wrong which ever way they turned or not turned, and they become more wrong for standing still. And this does NOT mean if Jews never existed anyone of them would be right - that status quo remains! Hmm...gets one thinking... :constern01:

show_no_mercy

It's ironic, Christianity wouldn't exist if it weren't for Christians taking LXX quotes out of context. The reason that Matthew wrote that Jesus and his family came from Egypt is due to Matt's overzealous desire for Jesus to fulfill Jewish "prophecy", so he takes quotes from the LXX out of context and puts it on Jesus.

The whole "coming out of Egypt" deal is Matthew at 2:15 taking Hosea 11:1 out of context to fulfill a made up prophecy about Jesus.

This isn't about Jesus, it's about the Exodus.

Doug Shaver

According to inerrantists, that would be the part where Luke does not insert the word "immediately."

judge

I would imagine, that if you wish to demonstrate a contradiction, then it must be you who shows it to be impossible.
The thing is that it is possible, even if it seems unlikely, that information is omitted from such a story.
Thus anyone who wants to believe there is no contradiction does IMHO, have some grounds.

aa5874

Not at all. There is no need to show that it is impossible only that there is a contradiction. The reasons for gMatthew's baby Jesus to have gone to Egypt was to avoid being killed by Herod after being warned by the angel. The birth of Jesus in gMatthew is totally secretive, the Magi's did not even tell Herod where the baby Jesus was.

The birth narrative as written in gLuke does not mention an angel warning Joseph and Mary, instead they tell the shepherds about the birth of Jesus, and the shepherds in turn tell other people about the Baby Jesus after they visit him.

Luke's birthstory is blatantly different to gMatthew's. It contradicts all the major themes. Gmatthew is based on fear, gLuke on rejoicing and good news.
It is irrelevant what may or may not have been omitted, the stories as they are found are contradictory.

And further to show that claiming information may have been omitted is irrelevant, if both stories were the same, you could still say it is possible information is missing.

spamandham

:huh:

The Gospels are not history reports, they are what is sometimes called a 'hero' biography, i.e., a bunch of stuff people made up that may or may not have any basis in any actual history.