FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-12-2009, 05:39 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,721
Default Where did Jesus and his family go? A contradiction from the Bible

Here's what Luke says:

Luke 2:39 (King James Version)
Quote:
And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.
Here's what Matthew says:

Matthew 2:13 (King James Version)
Quote:
And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
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?
Kasper is offline  
Old 04-12-2009, 05:52 PM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TehMuffin View Post
Here's what Luke says:

Luke 2:39 (King James Version)
Quote:
And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.
Here's what Matthew says:

Matthew 2:13 (King James Version)
Quote:
And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
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?

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
Quote:
15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.

18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-12-2009, 05:56 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,265
Thumbs up THE REAL CONTRADICTION IS ELSEWHERE

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:
IamJoseph is offline  
Old 04-12-2009, 06:05 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,721
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
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.
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.
Kasper is offline  
Old 04-12-2009, 06:41 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,265
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by TehMuffin View Post

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.
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:
IamJoseph is offline  
Old 04-13-2009, 02:49 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TehMuffin View Post
Here's what Matthew says:

Matthew 2:13 (King James Version)
Quote:
And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
You can read both gospels to check that the quotes are not taken out of context.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosea 11
When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
This isn't about Jesus, it's about the Exodus.
show_no_mercy is offline  
Old 04-13-2009, 03:42 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TehMuffin View Post
Which part of "return into" opens up the possibility that they could have gone somewhere else?
According to inerrantists, that would be the part where Luke does not insert the word "immediately."
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 02:42 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TehMuffin View Post

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?
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.
judge is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 09:47 PM   #9
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by judge View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TehMuffin View Post

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?
I would imagine, that if you wish to demonstrate a contradiction, then it must be you who shows it to be impossible.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by judge
The thing is that it is possible, even if it seems unlikely, that information is omitted from such a story.
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.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-14-2009, 09:51 PM   #10
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TehMuffin View Post
Here's what Luke says:

...
Here's what Matthew says:
: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.
spamandham is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:53 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.